When JonBenet was found in the wine cellar she was wearing oversized panties fit for a 12-year old. Patsy said she purchased them from Bloomingdale’s on a trip to New York in November as a Christmas gift for her niece Jenny. Patsy also insisted JonBenet preferred the oversized underwear. Not everyone is convinced.
Over the years a variety of explanations have been offered for the big Bloomies. Some have suggested they would be appropriate if worn over the Pull-ups JonBenet sometimes used. However, Patsy said JonBenet no longer used Pull-ups
(see the comments following cynic’s post below). Others have regarded the big Bloomies as an artifact of the “chaotic” situation that existed the night of the crime, such as a clueless male re-dressing JonBenet. This interpretation of the Bloomies as some kind of mistake has never been entirely accepted. From days of old some of the best posters have felt the Bloomies must have some deeper meaning. Here is what koldcase of FFJ wrote in 2006:
“there's something involving the panties and the package that relates to the events of the night that ended with JonBenet's death.”
Five years later cynic of WS expressed a similar sentiment:
“I don’t believe that JonBenet picked out and wore these panties on Christmas day as PR suggested, nor do I believe that PR had any plans for those panties other than giving them to her niece. I believe that the panties were wrapped as a gift, but something happened which changed those plans, something which necessitated removing the Wednesday panties from the package in which they were wrapped and redressing JBR in them.” cynic Jan 3, 2011
This post endeavors to discover the deeper meaning envisioned by such posters. Does it involve the Bloomies being brought into the crime scene on purpose? Presumably so; and the only reason I can think of for the Ramseys to do that is if somehow the Bloomies conferred an advantage on the Ramseys. But what possible advantage could such bizarre attire have for them? The Bloomies just make it look like something fishy is going on, hardly an advantage for the Ramseys.
But let’s spend a little time thinking about this.
Picture JonBenet lying in the wine cellar with everything the same except that she is dressed in ordinary underwear instead of the Bloomies. Turning this scene over in the mind’s eye does anything stand out? For a long time nothing does. But eventually you notice there is one tiny difference that makes all the difference in the world. For the DNA the Bloomies were carrying constitute a great advantage for the Ramseys. This DNA, known as UM1 (unidentified male one) is by far the most important piece of evidence supporting the presence of an intruder that night. So if the Bloomies were removed from JonBenet UM1 would be removed with them. And that removal might have made the Ramsey case develop very differently. Hence the Ramseys had motive aplenty to get those Bloomies on Jonbenet – assuming they had reason to believe foreign DNA (or foreign fingerprints) were on them. But why in the world would they think that? The Bloomies were fresh out of the package they were purchased in.
Two Christmas presents stored in the basement may provide a clue - here is a link to a picture of them. Someone had torn their wrapping, which aroused the curiosity of law enforcement. The relevance of this fact lies in Patsy’s assertion the Bloomies were originally a Christmas gift too. If two Christmas presents had been tampered with why not three? And if one of them was tampered with to the extent of handling the contents it is certainly possible DNA (or fingerprints) could have been left behind. Was this what Patsy was thinking in the aftermath of the crime? After all, the presents with torn wrapping were found in the wine cellar close to where the body of JonBenet was laid. The sight of them could have reminded someone of the package of Bloomies, if indeed it had been tampered with. So let’s set up the hypothesis
UM1 = an individual present in the Ramsey house in November or December of 1996 who opened the Bloomingdale’s package and handled the contents, leaving behind DNA. More likely than not he also torn the wrapping of the other two Christmas presents as part of this behavior, although the possibility someone else did that cannot be entirely ruled out.
Let’s see where this hypothesis (which I’ll dub “the package break-in model”) takes us. In August of 2000 Patsy was questioned by law enforcement about two trips she made to New York:
Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
A. Bloomingdales in New York.
Q. Who purchased those?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
A. It was, I think, November of '96.
Q. In the fall of 1996, how many trips did you make to New York?
A. Two, I believe.
0080
Q. Which of those two trips did you purchase the Bloomi's? A. The first trip.
Q. Was it something that was selected by JonBenet?
A. I believe so. Q. Was it your intention, when you purchased those, for those to be for her, not for some third party as a gift?
A. I bought some things that were gifts and some things for her. So I don't --
A. Well, I think that I bought a package of the -- they came in a package of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. I think I bought a package to give to my niece.
Q. Which niece was that?
A. Jenny Davis.
One of the striking aspects of this interview are the questionable answers Patsy gives in regard to the size of JonBenet’s panties. Her first answer to this question is as follows:
Q. She was six years old?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. What size underpants would you normally buy for her?
A. 8 to 10.
Later in the interview she offers a second opinion:
0093
Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you aware that these were the size of panties that she was wearing, and
this has been publicized, it is out in the open, that they were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of that?
A. I have become aware of that, yes.
Q. And how did you become aware of that?
A. Something I read, I am sure.
Q. And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept -
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. -- where you were describing that they were just put in that drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay? Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was six years old?
A. I would say more like six to eight. There were probably some in there that were too small.
8 to 10? Six to eight? When what’s actually in the drawer is four or six? The panty drawer evidence does not support Patsy’s claim JonBenet preferred large underwear, or even had access to them. Nor is there any other evidence suggesting JonBenet preferred such underwear. Patsy’s second answer (six to eight) is somewhat more realistic, perhaps under pressure from law enforcement. But it’s difficult to avoid the impression Patsy was trying to inflate the size of the panties JonBenet wore. This conclusion shows she is aware the big Bloomies don’t belong on JonBenet and is trying to hide the real reason they are there. Which makes perfect sense in the context of the package break-in model.
Patsy’s chronologies of the Bloomies are one of the most important features of the interview. Here is her first chronology:
Q. Okay. we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it.
0084
A I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on.
This chronology takes for granted the big Bloomies were purchased for JonBenet, not Jenny. But it’s hard to believe Patsy – who, like her daughter, was a beauty pageant queen - would give her daughter ill-fitting clothing of any kind. And the previous section showed her claim JonBenet preferred the big bloomies is questionable. But soon Patsy puts forward a second chronology:
0085
Q. -- do you recall ever having any conversations with her concerning the fact that she is wearing underwear that is just too large for her?
A. No. Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it had caught your attention or came to your attention, do you think you might have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't fit, put something on that fits, that is inappropriate?
A. Well, obviously we, you know, the package had been opened, we made the decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and use them because, you know, we weren't going to give them to Jenny after all
In this chronology the Bloomies were purchased for Jenny as their size would imply. And Patsy suggests the package had been opened before it was supposedly given to JonBenet. That was the reason it went to JonBenet rather than Jenny.
This second chronology makes no explicit reference to JonBenet opening the package and putting on the big bloomies, so it’s probably closer to the truth. Its reference to going ahead and using them sounds like a holdover from the first chronology. Apart from this Patsy’s second chronology confirms much of what the package break-in model maintains.
This post is written from the point of view the Ramseys re-dressed JonBenet in the Bloomies after her death. But suppose we accept Patsy’s claim JonBenet preferred to wear the big Bloomies, and was doing so that Christmas night. In these circumstances, and following Patsy’s second chronology, the Bloomies would have picked up DNA from the break-in as before. So if we assume Patsy was telling the truth in the interview we are led to an alternative, more limited version of the package break-in theory, but one which still accounts for the presence of UM1 on the Bloomies. The UM1 on the Bloomies depends only on the break-in itself, not on how the Bloomies got on JonBenet.
How does all this compare to traditional theories regarding the origin of UM1? Perhaps the best-known is the factory worker theory, which suggests a garment worker in Thailand, where the Bloomies were made, left DNA on them during the process of manufacture. But the vast majority of these workers in Thailand are women, and UM1 is from a male. The other popular explanation of UM1 is that it was left by a member of law enforcement during the process of collection or analysis. The problem here is that law enforcement is well aware of this issue, and has made strenuous efforts to locate UM1 among their ranks, but without success.
None of this means traditional theories, or a twist on traditional theories, are disproved. But such theories struggle to gain traction whereas the package break-in theory not only lacks such problems but can muster unexpected support from Patsy’s own chronology of the Bloomies.
The reader may have noticed that although Patsy claims “I put the package of underwear in her bathroom” law enforcement gave no indication they found the Bloomingdale’s package in there. Nor did the police ever find it or the other Bloomies in it. They simply disappeared.
How does this fit into the crime? Well, this situation has parallels with other aspects of the case. The sources of cord and tape used to bind JonBenet have never been found either. Intruder theorists use this fact to argue the Ramseys had no access to these materials. RDI thinkers reply the absence of sources is just more staging by the Ramseys, who presumably disposed of the sources. Is the disappearance of the Bloomingdale package related to the disappearance of the rolls of cord and tape found on JonBenet? In 2012 Karen of FFJ commented on this matter as follows:
“I have to ask why would not the rest of these panties have ended up in the same place as the rest of the duct tape and the rest of the cord? There are missing elements that were used in this crime already. I don't understand why the missing panties are any different? I think they may be with the other things that are also missing. I don't see why they wouldn't be.”
The cord and duck tape have long been treated as a pair of items used to plant evidence of an intruder on JonBenet. The package break-in model asserts the Bloomies were also used to plant evidence of an intruder on JonBenet This bolsters Karen’s suggestion the cord, the duck tape, and the Bloomingdale’s panties are three-of-a-kind. Still there appears to be one weakness in Karen’s idea. For the sources of cord and tape had to disappear as a way of showing the Ramseys had no access to them and therefore it must have been an intruder who brought them into the house. But this reasoning isn’t valid for the Bloomies. Of course they look strange on JonBenet, but this does not of itself argue for or against an intruder. So why did the Ramseys feel the need to dispose of the source of the Bloomies? The package break-in model offers an answer. For JonBenet would only wear one of the Bloomies at a time, so only one of the Bloomies should be associated with the crime and have “intruder” DNA on it (the one she was wearing). If it turned out DNA was left on other Bloomies during the break-in the police would have to wonder what was going on. No wonder the Bloomingdale’s package went missing.
There is a fringe benefit to this three-of-a-kind treatment of the big Bloomies. To refute the intruder theory it is necessary to assume the Ramseys somehow disposed of the sources of cord and tape overnight. However, no evidence that they actually did this has ever appeared until the advent of the break-in model. For Patsy acknowledged the Bloomingdale’s package was kept in the house, yet the Ramseys managed to make it disappear. Since it was probably larger than the sources of cord and tape so much easier it would have been to make those sources disappear.
Now the hypothesis UM1 broke into the Bloomingdale’s package pulls together a variety of phenomenon into one unified theory:
This assumption cannot be independently verified. But neither is there any evidence tending to refute it. The fact that the opening of the package brought about the cancellation of the original gift plan suggests it was more than a superficial cut. And the removal of at least one Bloomie from the package (the one JonBenet was wearing) demonstrates that by the night of the crime there was a large opening in the package.
The Ramsey’s stratagem of planting foreign DNA on JonBenet involved striking absurdities that were noticed almost from the start. Yet it has protected them for all these years. But in light of the package break-in model UM1 and the Bloomies switch sides and become friends of the prosecution………
Over the years a variety of explanations have been offered for the big Bloomies. Some have suggested they would be appropriate if worn over the Pull-ups JonBenet sometimes used. However, Patsy said JonBenet no longer used Pull-ups
(see the comments following cynic’s post below). Others have regarded the big Bloomies as an artifact of the “chaotic” situation that existed the night of the crime, such as a clueless male re-dressing JonBenet. This interpretation of the Bloomies as some kind of mistake has never been entirely accepted. From days of old some of the best posters have felt the Bloomies must have some deeper meaning. Here is what koldcase of FFJ wrote in 2006:
“there's something involving the panties and the package that relates to the events of the night that ended with JonBenet's death.”
Five years later cynic of WS expressed a similar sentiment:
“I don’t believe that JonBenet picked out and wore these panties on Christmas day as PR suggested, nor do I believe that PR had any plans for those panties other than giving them to her niece. I believe that the panties were wrapped as a gift, but something happened which changed those plans, something which necessitated removing the Wednesday panties from the package in which they were wrapped and redressing JBR in them.” cynic Jan 3, 2011
This post endeavors to discover the deeper meaning envisioned by such posters. Does it involve the Bloomies being brought into the crime scene on purpose? Presumably so; and the only reason I can think of for the Ramseys to do that is if somehow the Bloomies conferred an advantage on the Ramseys. But what possible advantage could such bizarre attire have for them? The Bloomies just make it look like something fishy is going on, hardly an advantage for the Ramseys.
But let’s spend a little time thinking about this.
Picture JonBenet lying in the wine cellar with everything the same except that she is dressed in ordinary underwear instead of the Bloomies. Turning this scene over in the mind’s eye does anything stand out? For a long time nothing does. But eventually you notice there is one tiny difference that makes all the difference in the world. For the DNA the Bloomies were carrying constitute a great advantage for the Ramseys. This DNA, known as UM1 (unidentified male one) is by far the most important piece of evidence supporting the presence of an intruder that night. So if the Bloomies were removed from JonBenet UM1 would be removed with them. And that removal might have made the Ramsey case develop very differently. Hence the Ramseys had motive aplenty to get those Bloomies on Jonbenet – assuming they had reason to believe foreign DNA (or foreign fingerprints) were on them. But why in the world would they think that? The Bloomies were fresh out of the package they were purchased in.
Two Christmas presents stored in the basement may provide a clue - here is a link to a picture of them. Someone had torn their wrapping, which aroused the curiosity of law enforcement. The relevance of this fact lies in Patsy’s assertion the Bloomies were originally a Christmas gift too. If two Christmas presents had been tampered with why not three? And if one of them was tampered with to the extent of handling the contents it is certainly possible DNA (or fingerprints) could have been left behind. Was this what Patsy was thinking in the aftermath of the crime? After all, the presents with torn wrapping were found in the wine cellar close to where the body of JonBenet was laid. The sight of them could have reminded someone of the package of Bloomies, if indeed it had been tampered with. So let’s set up the hypothesis
UM1 = an individual present in the Ramsey house in November or December of 1996 who opened the Bloomingdale’s package and handled the contents, leaving behind DNA. More likely than not he also torn the wrapping of the other two Christmas presents as part of this behavior, although the possibility someone else did that cannot be entirely ruled out.
Let’s see where this hypothesis (which I’ll dub “the package break-in model”) takes us. In August of 2000 Patsy was questioned by law enforcement about two trips she made to New York:
Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
A. Bloomingdales in New York.
Q. Who purchased those?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
A. It was, I think, November of '96.
Q. In the fall of 1996, how many trips did you make to New York?
A. Two, I believe.
0080
Q. Which of those two trips did you purchase the Bloomi's? A. The first trip.
Q. Was it something that was selected by JonBenet?
A. I believe so. Q. Was it your intention, when you purchased those, for those to be for her, not for some third party as a gift?
A. I bought some things that were gifts and some things for her. So I don't --
A. Well, I think that I bought a package of the -- they came in a package of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. I think I bought a package to give to my niece.
Q. Which niece was that?
A. Jenny Davis.
One of the striking aspects of this interview are the questionable answers Patsy gives in regard to the size of JonBenet’s panties. Her first answer to this question is as follows:
Q. She was six years old?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. What size underpants would you normally buy for her?
A. 8 to 10.
Later in the interview she offers a second opinion:
0093
Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you aware that these were the size of panties that she was wearing, and
this has been publicized, it is out in the open, that they were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of that?
A. I have become aware of that, yes.
Q. And how did you become aware of that?
A. Something I read, I am sure.
Q. And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept -
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. -- where you were describing that they were just put in that drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay? Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was six years old?
A. I would say more like six to eight. There were probably some in there that were too small.
8 to 10? Six to eight? When what’s actually in the drawer is four or six? The panty drawer evidence does not support Patsy’s claim JonBenet preferred large underwear, or even had access to them. Nor is there any other evidence suggesting JonBenet preferred such underwear. Patsy’s second answer (six to eight) is somewhat more realistic, perhaps under pressure from law enforcement. But it’s difficult to avoid the impression Patsy was trying to inflate the size of the panties JonBenet wore. This conclusion shows she is aware the big Bloomies don’t belong on JonBenet and is trying to hide the real reason they are there. Which makes perfect sense in the context of the package break-in model.
Patsy’s chronologies of the Bloomies are one of the most important features of the interview. Here is her first chronology:
Q. Okay. we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it.
0084
A I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on.
This chronology takes for granted the big Bloomies were purchased for JonBenet, not Jenny. But it’s hard to believe Patsy – who, like her daughter, was a beauty pageant queen - would give her daughter ill-fitting clothing of any kind. And the previous section showed her claim JonBenet preferred the big bloomies is questionable. But soon Patsy puts forward a second chronology:
0085
Q. -- do you recall ever having any conversations with her concerning the fact that she is wearing underwear that is just too large for her?
A. No. Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it had caught your attention or came to your attention, do you think you might have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't fit, put something on that fits, that is inappropriate?
A. Well, obviously we, you know, the package had been opened, we made the decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and use them because, you know, we weren't going to give them to Jenny after all
In this chronology the Bloomies were purchased for Jenny as their size would imply. And Patsy suggests the package had been opened before it was supposedly given to JonBenet. That was the reason it went to JonBenet rather than Jenny.
This second chronology makes no explicit reference to JonBenet opening the package and putting on the big bloomies, so it’s probably closer to the truth. Its reference to going ahead and using them sounds like a holdover from the first chronology. Apart from this Patsy’s second chronology confirms much of what the package break-in model maintains.
This post is written from the point of view the Ramseys re-dressed JonBenet in the Bloomies after her death. But suppose we accept Patsy’s claim JonBenet preferred to wear the big Bloomies, and was doing so that Christmas night. In these circumstances, and following Patsy’s second chronology, the Bloomies would have picked up DNA from the break-in as before. So if we assume Patsy was telling the truth in the interview we are led to an alternative, more limited version of the package break-in theory, but one which still accounts for the presence of UM1 on the Bloomies. The UM1 on the Bloomies depends only on the break-in itself, not on how the Bloomies got on JonBenet.
How does all this compare to traditional theories regarding the origin of UM1? Perhaps the best-known is the factory worker theory, which suggests a garment worker in Thailand, where the Bloomies were made, left DNA on them during the process of manufacture. But the vast majority of these workers in Thailand are women, and UM1 is from a male. The other popular explanation of UM1 is that it was left by a member of law enforcement during the process of collection or analysis. The problem here is that law enforcement is well aware of this issue, and has made strenuous efforts to locate UM1 among their ranks, but without success.
None of this means traditional theories, or a twist on traditional theories, are disproved. But such theories struggle to gain traction whereas the package break-in theory not only lacks such problems but can muster unexpected support from Patsy’s own chronology of the Bloomies.
The reader may have noticed that although Patsy claims “I put the package of underwear in her bathroom” law enforcement gave no indication they found the Bloomingdale’s package in there. Nor did the police ever find it or the other Bloomies in it. They simply disappeared.
How does this fit into the crime? Well, this situation has parallels with other aspects of the case. The sources of cord and tape used to bind JonBenet have never been found either. Intruder theorists use this fact to argue the Ramseys had no access to these materials. RDI thinkers reply the absence of sources is just more staging by the Ramseys, who presumably disposed of the sources. Is the disappearance of the Bloomingdale package related to the disappearance of the rolls of cord and tape found on JonBenet? In 2012 Karen of FFJ commented on this matter as follows:
“I have to ask why would not the rest of these panties have ended up in the same place as the rest of the duct tape and the rest of the cord? There are missing elements that were used in this crime already. I don't understand why the missing panties are any different? I think they may be with the other things that are also missing. I don't see why they wouldn't be.”
The cord and duck tape have long been treated as a pair of items used to plant evidence of an intruder on JonBenet. The package break-in model asserts the Bloomies were also used to plant evidence of an intruder on JonBenet This bolsters Karen’s suggestion the cord, the duck tape, and the Bloomingdale’s panties are three-of-a-kind. Still there appears to be one weakness in Karen’s idea. For the sources of cord and tape had to disappear as a way of showing the Ramseys had no access to them and therefore it must have been an intruder who brought them into the house. But this reasoning isn’t valid for the Bloomies. Of course they look strange on JonBenet, but this does not of itself argue for or against an intruder. So why did the Ramseys feel the need to dispose of the source of the Bloomies? The package break-in model offers an answer. For JonBenet would only wear one of the Bloomies at a time, so only one of the Bloomies should be associated with the crime and have “intruder” DNA on it (the one she was wearing). If it turned out DNA was left on other Bloomies during the break-in the police would have to wonder what was going on. No wonder the Bloomingdale’s package went missing.
There is a fringe benefit to this three-of-a-kind treatment of the big Bloomies. To refute the intruder theory it is necessary to assume the Ramseys somehow disposed of the sources of cord and tape overnight. However, no evidence that they actually did this has ever appeared until the advent of the break-in model. For Patsy acknowledged the Bloomingdale’s package was kept in the house, yet the Ramseys managed to make it disappear. Since it was probably larger than the sources of cord and tape so much easier it would have been to make those sources disappear.
Now the hypothesis UM1 broke into the Bloomingdale’s package pulls together a variety of phenomenon into one unified theory:
- The two Christmas packages in the wine cellar with torn wrapping
- How DNA was left on the Bloomies
- Why the big Bloomies ended up on JonBenet.
- Patsy’s exaggeration of JonBenet’s panty size and her claim JonBenet preferred oversized panties
- Patsy’s second chronology of the Bloomies
- The disappearance of the Bloomingdale’s package and the other Bloomies in it
This assumption cannot be independently verified. But neither is there any evidence tending to refute it. The fact that the opening of the package brought about the cancellation of the original gift plan suggests it was more than a superficial cut. And the removal of at least one Bloomie from the package (the one JonBenet was wearing) demonstrates that by the night of the crime there was a large opening in the package.
The Ramsey’s stratagem of planting foreign DNA on JonBenet involved striking absurdities that were noticed almost from the start. Yet it has protected them for all these years. But in light of the package break-in model UM1 and the Bloomies switch sides and become friends of the prosecution………
