PDA

View Full Version : underwear question



popcorn
01-15-2004, 02:50 PM
There has been much made about the foreign DNA in JonBenet's panties. According to documents it appears underwear from John and Patsy were also seized. Were any of those subjected to DNA testing?

:confused: Should they or shouldn't they be? :confused:

How much would it cost the poor taxpayers of Colordao? Early on the suggestion of JonBenet coming between a parent's affair was mentioned that is the reason I bring this up.

Jayelles
01-15-2004, 03:02 PM
Well, I suppose if Patsy (or John - let's not be sexist!) had a lover, there would be a chance of his/her DNA being on her/her underwear - wouldn't there?

Eagle1
01-16-2004, 05:27 AM
Too late now, but would either of them have had any time to be with a lover when they had to get the childrens' and friends' presents ready, do some last-minute decorating, had a party the 23rd, cleanup after that which I doubt LHP completely did, pretty busy time of year. Also packing a few things for a couple of trips. Do you really think there was time for any hanky-panky?

But then again, they may have had their gang over that night, or they may have just dropped in, who were into whatever McSanta was into, with his child-deaths notches on his harp. Maybe "harvesting" children for Jesus or, Celtic sacrificing them(???) That harp looms large with me, as a major part of the case.

Not saying McSanta necessarily masterminded whatever happened, but that some out-of-town person may have who "used" the young person Barnhill saw, who may have been the same one hanging out in Charlvoix before this happened, badmouthing John Ramsey and acting pretty crazy. Here's a really far-out thought, related to your idea. What if it was some pagan religion revival where everybody there had swinging sex? Then you could be right. I hate to even think of it, but, a collection of childrens' notches on a harp? Sounds like sacrifice, doesn't it? (Shudder)

popcorn
01-16-2004, 08:47 AM
is more in the realm of foreign DNA from a tryst of either parent's; more likely John who has a history of infidelity, transfering from his underwear to JonBenet's. I think what was collected per inventory lists remains in police custody so it shouldn't be too late. Assume is what was collected was the dirty laundry not from drawers. In the listing there are four terms; clothing underwear (3 pairs), clothing underwear men's (1 pair), clothing underwear child's (3 pairs), and clothing underwear girl's (6 listings but may include packages). Odd theat apparently John only had 1 pair taken to three each for Patsy and Burke and much more for the victim. If the vicitm's are individual pairs she was using more than 1 pair a day which verifies the potty training issues.

Edited to add-I think the right interpretation 6 listings of JonBenet's underwear is 4 individual pairs, a package of 5, and a package of 2. So if it was a package of 5 it must have been opened before and not pristine as 2 are missing. Also I'd add the pair she was wearing so she had 5 pairs dirty to Johns 1, Patsy's 3 and Burke' s 3.

Where are the rest of John's shorts? How many days in a row does he wear them? When was laundry last done?

Toth
01-16-2004, 09:41 AM
I've no idea about or interest in the parents underwear.
The dna under the fingernails and in the panties came from the intruder, not the parents.

BlueCrab
01-16-2004, 09:59 AM
is more in the realm of foreign DNA from a tryst of either parent's; more likely John who has a history of infidelity, transfering from his underwear to JonBenet's. I think what was collected per inventory lists remains in police custody so it shouldn't be too late. Assume is what was collected was the dirty laundry not from drawers. In the listing there are four terms; clothing underwear (3 pairs), clothing underwear men's (1 pair), clothing underwear child's (3 pairs), and clothing underwear girl's (6 listings but may include packages). Odd theat apparently John only had 1 pair taken to three each for Patsy and Burke and much more for the victim. If the vicitm's are individual pairs she was using more than 1 pair a day which verifies the potty training issues.

Edited to add-I think the right interpretation 6 listings of JonBenet's underwear is 4 individual pairs, a package of 5, and a package of 2. So if it was a package of 5 it must have been opened before and not pristine as 2 are missing. Also I'd add the pair she was wearing so she had 5 pairs dirty to Johns 1, Patsy's 3 and Burke' s 3.

Where are the rest of John's shorts? How many days in a row does he wear them? When was laundry last done?



Did the perp use clothing items from the dirty laundry basket in the basement to wipe down JonBenet? If John wore dark blue underwear that could account for the fibers found on JonBenet that came from the missing dark blue fabric used to wipe her down. It could also account for the black fibers from John's shirt that were found in JonBenet's crotch.

JMO

Toth
01-16-2004, 10:13 AM
It could also account for the black fibers from John's shirt that were found in JonBenet's crotch.No such fibers were found, that was a mere interrogation technique and John Ramsey's response to that suggestion was BxxxSxxx.

popcorn
01-16-2004, 10:38 AM
I've no idea about or interest in the parents underwear.
The dna under the fingernails and in the panties came from the intruder, not the parents.

If you're looking for an intruder with intimate connections to the parents their undergarments are a good place to start, to show no interest is to put blinders on. All evidence has to be considered not just what you pick and choose according to predetermined notions.

John Ramsey cheated on his first wife and certainly may have cheated on Patsy. Either his shorts are missing or he was perhaps wearing ladie's panties.

Jayelles
01-16-2004, 11:17 AM
No such fibers were found, that was a mere interrogation technique and John Ramsey's response to that suggestion was BxxxSxxx.


Toth - the fact that the BPD refused to produce proof in the form of a lab report does not mean the lab report didn't exist.

Unless you are one of the investigators on this case, then you have NO idea whether this was an investigative bluff or not.

Lin Wood/******* suggesting it was so does not make it a fact.

Shylock
01-16-2004, 12:29 PM
I've no idea about or interest in the parents underwear.
The dna under the fingernails and in the panties came from the intruder, not the parents.
Since you (or anyone else) can't possibly come up with an explanation how an intruder could leave so little genetic material that it wasn't possible to obtain a complete DNA strand, we can only assume the DNA in the panties came from the garment factory or laboratory contamination.
Same problem with the broken strand from under the fingernails, no identifiable source, no way to prove it's even related to the crime and not some kind of contamination or secondary transfer.

BlueCrab
01-16-2004, 12:59 PM
In any event, and if the underwear headcount is correct, WHERE'S THE UNDERWEAR?

Everyone else apparently had 3 pairs of dirty underwear in the dirty clothes basket which the cops kept as evidence. But only one pair is from John. Does John wear the same pair of underwear for 3 days?

Or were John's underwear used as the missing wipedown cloth that left dark blue fibers on JonBenet's body?

JMO

Shawna
01-16-2004, 04:03 PM
What if it was some pagan religion revival where everybody there had swinging sex? Then you could be right. I hate to even think of it, but, a collection of childrens' notches on a harp? Sounds like sacrifice, doesn't it? (Shudder)

I heard of a group known as the Gathering Rainbow which is into weird stuff. There was a poster on usenet that claimed he saw Emmanuel and Wanda Barzee at Rainbow Circles in Utah and San Diego:waitasec:

http://www.welcomehome.org

BlueCrab
01-16-2004, 06:18 PM
Assuming all the underwear the cops took from the house as evidence were dirty:

Patsy and Burke each had 3 pairs of underwear in the dirty clothes basket. JonBenet would have more underwear than the others in the clothes basket because the size 12 panties were apparently used over pull-ups from time to time. In other words, she may have occasionally used size 6 and size 12 panties on the same day.

But why does John have just 1 pair of underwear in the basket? There should be 1 or 2 more pairs from John in the basket.

Incidentally, JonBenet was wearing size 12 underwear when found dead, but there were no pull-ups at the crime scene. It strongly suggests she was carelessly redressed after being killed and the size 6 underwear she had been wearing is missing.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

sissi
01-16-2004, 07:17 PM
I do wonder if while dressing Arianna ,Patsy opened that package of panties. Maybe this was the reason for checking the little girl's dna,to see if someone had worn them before.Why did they check her dna two years later,does anyone have a good guess for a reason behind this?
JMO

Jayelles
01-17-2004, 07:50 PM
I do wonder if while dressing Arianna ,Patsy opened that package of panties. Maybe this was the reason for checking the little girl's dna,to see if someone had worn them before.Why did they check her dna two years later,does anyone have a good guess for a reason behind this?
JMO

Sissi - If what you say is true, then it ties in with the timing of DNA-x. Now, you have just made me think of something quite interesting. In his deposition, Beckner was asked if Chris Wolf's DNA had been checked against DNA-x and it was implied that it hadn't, because there was no need. Lin Wood asked for clarification on this and was told that Beckner would say no more on the matter.

Could it be - that DNA-x is female? That would explain why there was no need to compare Wolf's DNA with it? And if what you say is true - that Arianna Pugh's DNA was taken 2 years later, then perhaps they were checking female DNA at that time?

popcorn
01-17-2004, 08:10 PM
It's possible all the DNA is female. References to it being male originated from the RST. No official documents have ever been released.

Maxi
01-17-2004, 08:20 PM
Are we counting pairs of underwear from the police inventories? Cause the BPD said those inventories weren't entirely accurate. Some things were counted twice, so maybe some things were never counted at all.

popcorn
01-18-2004, 08:02 AM
The only inventory I heard wasn't accurate was that of Pam's escapade where she supposedly removed a painting, a bible, clothing, stuffed animals, dolls, family mementos, photographs and personal papers. There are different things listed depending on the book. Funny the memento stuff was not centered around JonBenet but included Patsy's baby shoes and John's baby rattle. That act alone reeks of something and is worthy of investigation by a psychologist.

Soooo...... take your pick, an informal poll

John may not have changed his shorts per the family tradition and been wearing dirty clothes.

Pam was getting clothes and may have removed John's missing shorts.

He looks like a little guy, I'm sure there is a chance he could fit Patsy's panties if he wanted but also wondering if he could have fit the oversize panties found on the body.

The BPD couldn't find the filthy things in that pig pen.

BlueCrab
01-18-2004, 09:08 AM
The only inventory I heard wasn't accurate was that of Pam's escapade where she supposedly removed a painting, a bible, clothing, stuffed animals, dolls, family mementos, photographs and personal papers. There are different things listed depending on the book. Funny the memento stuff was not centered around JonBenet but included Patsy's baby shoes and John's baby rattle. That act alone reeks of something and is worthy of investigation by a psychologist.

Soooo...... take your pick, an informal poll

John may not have changed his shorts per the family tradition and been wearing dirty clothes.

Pam was getting clothes and may have removed John's missing shorts.

He looks like a little guy, I'm sure there is a chance he could fit Patsy's panties if he wanted but also wondering if he could have fit the oversize panties found on the body.

The BPD couldn't find the filthy things in that pig pen.



OR, John's dirty underwear were dark Blue; the perp removed them from the clothes basket in the basement to wipe down JonBenet's body, leaving dark blue fibers on the body; and the perp, knowing the underwear now contained the evidence just wiped from the labia and inner thighs of JonBenet's body, kept the underwear.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

sissi
01-18-2004, 12:35 PM
Jayelles,that is interesting! I never put the two together however it makes sense.
DNA-x...I assumed meant DNA (unknown)..but..given all DNA is unknown until matched ,the "X" may have very well stood for "female",which does make sense.
Now what are we to think?
IMO JMO

Blazeboy3
01-20-2004, 06:34 AM
Are we counting pairs of underwear from the police inventories? Cause the BPD said those inventories weren't entirely accurate. Some things were counted twice, so maybe some things were never counted at all.

Not me ...not counting anyone's underwear...it's not the solution to the problem...IMHO...???
OH THIS IS TOO FUNNY... "underwear?"...really? :croc: :doh:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/jonbenet/smit_letter.html
IMHO...it's about SHOES...why wasn't JonBenet wearing any "shoes"...let us ask "FOX:LouSmit" about that hum???...!!!~~~ :bang: :croc: :hand: :doh:

At this point in the investigation "the case" tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still out there and no one is actively looking for him. There are still many areas of investigation which must be explored before life and death decisions are made.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1211jon1.html

Shoes, shoes, the victim's shoes, who will stand in the victim's shoes?

Good Luck to you and your fine office and may God bless you in the awesome decisions you must soon make.

Sincerely,
Detective Lou Smit

Blazeboy3
01-20-2004, 06:48 AM
Not me ...not counting anyone's underwear...it's not the solution to the problem...IMHO...???
OH THIS IS TOO FUNNY... "underwear?"...really? :croc: :doh:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/jonbenet/smit_letter.html
IMHO...it's about SHOES...why wasn't JonBenet wearing any "shoes"...let us ask "FOX:LouSmit" about that hum???...!!!~~~ :bang: :croc: :hand: :doh:

At this point in the investigation "the case" tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still out there and no one is actively looking for him. There are still many areas of investigation which must be explored before life and death decisions are made.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1211jon1.html

Shoes, shoes, the victim's shoes, who will stand in the victim's shoes?

Good Luck to you and your fine office and may God bless you in the awesome decisions you must soon make.

Sincerely,
Detective Lou Smit
OK...what wrong with this speech/statement...???
:) :slap: :banghead: :waitasec: :snooty: :rolleyes: :liar:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/jonbenet/ramsey_letter.html
As you know, our family has not often spoken publicly in the past because so much of what surrounds our tragedy is used to entertain for profit. For my family, the loss of JonBenet was a crushing loss that left us crying out, "Why did this happen to such a precious child? Why did this happen to a good family?" JonBenet's murder has inflicted the worst pain imaginable on my family, and it is simply cruel to exploit her death for profit, as much of the media has, so we have been unwilling to provide fodder for their talk shows. We do feel compelled to speak out at this time as a result of Detective Lou Smit's resignation after 16 months of working to find the killer of our daughter and sister JonBenet. While we are grateful for Detective Smit's work to find JonBenet's killer, we are discouraged to lose his official participation in this case. Detective Smit is the only experienced homicide detective who has ever been assigned long-term to find the killer of JonBenet.

popcorn
01-24-2004, 06:17 AM
Sorry BB if you don't see the relevance of the underwear but that speck of foreign DNA is about the only thing keeping the Ramseys out of prison. It's not a DNA case as many have said but because there was a deposit in her panties it is an underwear caper nonetheless.

From the thread 'question' by Barbara it came to light in an interview question by Kane, there were 15 pairs of underwear taken from the bathroom drawer; all in sizes 4-6. As in the rest of the days of the week were not seized, if Patsy ever owned them in the first place. It's possible this was a borrowed pair from a pageant or friend of unknown origin as JonBenet was known to have accidents requiring a fresh pair at inpromptu times.

I recall reading somewhere on a Ramsey advocate forum, Patsy or even LL Wood, had that package today. As in they were kept in some obscure location unrelated to the crime scene and not accesible by the police, or therefore supposed intruder.

Also in the interview Patsy clearly states they were no longer in a sealed package but had been opened and mixed into the drawer so how can she have a package today?

Blazeboy3
01-24-2004, 06:37 AM
Sorry BB if you don't see the relevance of the underwear but that speck of foreign DNA is about the only thing keeping the Ramseys out of prison. It's not a DNA case as many have said but because there was a deposit in her panties it is an underwear caper nonetheless.

From the thread 'question' by Barbara it came to light in an interview question by Kane, there were 15 pairs of underwear taken from the bathroom drawer; all in sizes 4-6. As in the rest of the days of the week were not seized, if Patsy ever owned them in the first place. It's possible this was a borrowed pair from a pageant or friend of unknown origin as JonBenet was known to have accidents requiring a fresh pair at inpromptu times.

I recall reading somewhere on a Ramsey advocate forum, Patsy or even LL Wood, had that package today. As in they were kept in some obscure location unrelated to the crime scene and not accesible by the police, or therefore supposed intruder.

Also in the interview Patsy clearly states they were no longer in a sealed package but had been opened and mixed into the drawer so how can she have a package today?

YUP...I totally agree...silly me... LOL ... IMHO I thought the goal(the R's goal) was to "find JonBenet's killer(s)" NOT "keep them(The Ramseys) out of jail" AND PLUS "let The Ramseys/Lyn Wood make LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY($$$) FROM LOTS AND LOTS OF LAWSUITS!" ... IMHO The R's/Wood are LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE "BANK!" and we're watching them do so at whose expense??? :twocents: ... ??? !!! :doh: :doh: :doh: @@@ :doh: :doh: :doh: :silenced: :silenced: :rolleyes:

Thanks!

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 01:06 PM
Patsy did not have the package of underwear after private investigators recovered them from the house. Private investigators turned them, and other items they collected, along with photographs of the house, over to Ramsey lawyers who had hired the PI's.

Through chain of custody, the items came into Lin Wood's possesion when the criminal lawyers were no longer retained and LW became the R's civil lawyer. LW turned the panty package over to the Boulder DA.

Furthermore, Kane's statement in the Atlanta interviews does not mesh with the evidence inventory made public. There were many pairs of girl's panties recovered, but not all on same day, not all by same evidence tech. If "15 pairs" of panties had all been removed as potential evidence from the same drawer, I contend that it wouldn't have taken more than one person to collect them on more than one day. Kane exaggerated or generalized, but he was not accurate in his statement.

popcorn
01-24-2004, 02:16 PM
It does nor present itself as a valid chain of custody for this evidence to come from the defense.

Toltec
01-24-2004, 06:46 PM
ONLY ONE PAIR COLLECTED FROM JOHN??? Is it possible that his underwear was used to wipe JonBenet down with? Sure it is...but that would have meant that it was male DNA recovered from JB's body.

The only tidy person in the Ramsey household was John and we would expect him to have placed his dirty undies in the clothes hamper. Perhaps he tucked the dirty undies in his body, or worn them under his clean ones when he left the home 26 Dec.

I still believe that Patsy is the killer and it is more likely she is the one who removed John's soiled undies from the home. And as far as the fibers from John's shirt found on JonBenet's crotch area...it is possible that after coming home, John removed his shirt and placed it in the hamper...and Patsy came upon the clothes hamper, removed one of John's undies to wipe JB down with, and the shirt somehow came into contact with the undies...therefore transferring shirt fibers onto his dirty undies.

Rambling on and this is my opinion which cannot be quoted or copied to any other forum.

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 06:56 PM
Popcorn, a defense is allowed just as viable a chain of evidence as any prosecution. You are mistaken.

popcorn
01-24-2004, 07:12 PM
A better way to word this is the chain of custody has not been established, it requires testimony from the investigator, you know the one that dumped the Ramseys.

Shylock
01-24-2004, 07:23 PM
Furthermore, Kane's statement in the Atlanta interviews does not mesh with the evidence inventory made public. There were many pairs of girl's panties recovered, but not all on same day, not all by same evidence tech.
So the questions still remain: Where did Patsy have the package of size-12 panties hidden that the evidence techs did not find them and collect them? And why did Patsy lie and say she put them in the drawer?

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 07:30 PM
Panties were in the opened package and the package was in the drawer. I do not know why the package was not collected but I have already given you the reason I think the package was not collected: it was new, held new, not yet worn panties, and would not hold evidence of incest if incest were to be discovered by way of what was thought to be semen on the body.

Brand new, unworn panties were not of consequence to the BPD.

Shylock
01-24-2004, 07:32 PM
Popcorn, a defense is allowed just as viable a chain of evidence as any prosecution. You are mistaken.Not exactly, LP. It gets into a sticky situation and this case is a perfect example. Lip Wood would have to take the stand since he is part of the chain of custody. On the stand he would have to submit to interogation by the prosecution. Most lawyers don't take the stand and testify because everything they know is considered "work product". If they refuse to answer questions, then the prosecution gets the evidence thrown out.

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 07:38 PM
Shylock, I have no fears that chain of custody on those panties will ever be a problem but the package of panties is inconsequential to the case against the intruder, anyway.

Shylock
01-24-2004, 07:39 PM
Brand new, unworn panties were not of consequence to the BPD.
I don't buy that at all. The BPD was still collecting evidence after the autopsy was performed. They knew she was wearing panties with the day of the week on them. If they saw an opened package with the same panties in it I would think they would put 2 and 2 together and take them as evidence. The answer might be in the crime scene photos the BPD has. One of them might show the drawer and it's contents before the panties were collected. Kane might have had a hidden motive for asking Patsy the underwear questions.

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 07:45 PM
I don't think Kane's motives hidden. He hoped to have Patsy admit to something incriminating her in JonBenét's murder.

Do you think that Lin Wood would have turned over the package of panties if he knew they were not in crime scene photos of the underwear drawer?

Shylock
01-24-2004, 07:54 PM
Shylock, I have no fears that chain of custody on those panties will ever be a problem but the package of panties is inconsequential to the case against the intruder, anyway.
The chain of custody is a BIG problem since there is no way of knowing how many of the Ramsey investigators/lawyers handled them and may have contaminated them. More importantly, it may make them useless for testing to see if there is DNA on them that originated in the Asian factory or maybe even in the retail outlet if a customer opened the package or returned them. Handling of the panties may have destroyed or damaged additional DNA that matched what is in the pair she had on.

And for all we know, the foreign DNA might have come from the package itself. Maybe a store worker or male shopper sneezed on the package and that got transfered to her hands and the panties when the package was opened.

popcorn
01-24-2004, 08:04 PM
It's consequential for the case against the Ramseys.

Ivy
01-24-2004, 09:04 PM
LP, regardless of whether the size 12 Bloomi panties JonBenet was wearing when her body was found were in the plastic bag until the killer took them out after he killed her, according to Patsy they came from a drawer in a bathroom. How would an intruder know the panties drawer was in the bathroom? Even if he did, why would he risk going clear upstairs to get clean panties to put on her body?

The BPD considered the size 12 panties important. Two of the reasons they gave are posted in bold in the paragraph above.

BlueCrab
01-24-2004, 11:35 PM
LP, regardless of whether the size 12 Bloomi panties JonBenet was wearing when her body was found were in the plastic bag until the killer took them out after he killed her, according to Patsy they came from a drawer in a bathroom. How would an intruder know the panties drawer was in the bathroom? Even if he did, why would he risk going clear upstairs to get clean panties to put on her body?

The BPD considered the size 12 panties important. Two of the reasons they gave are posted in bold in the paragraph above.


Burke knew where they were. But he didn't know enough to grab a pair of size six panties instead of a pair of size 12 panties. He put them on her anyway. Patsy would have known better.

JMO

Toth
01-24-2004, 11:43 PM
I rather doubt JonBenet's panties were ever removed, just pulled down and then pulled back up.

Ivy
01-24-2004, 11:45 PM
Toth, according to Patsy, JonBenet was wearing smaller panties when she was put to bed.

BlueCrab
01-24-2004, 11:55 PM
I rather doubt JonBenet's panties were ever removed, just pulled down and then pulled back up.


If JonBenet had been wearing size 12 panties the things would have fallen down into her pant legs with every step. The killer removed her size six underwear and, after death, put size 12 underwear on her.

JMO

sissi
01-25-2004, 02:14 AM
I do believe the panties were involved in the crime,first I find it hard to believe that a six year old would open a package of panties and pick out Wednesday for herself.
At six,especially on a special day,I would have my daughter's clothes ready for her when she got out of the bath. If she chose to put on something I hadn't chosen it would be fine,however,the undershirt and panties would be there for her to put on first. Patsy is assuming Jonbenet opened the package and put them on herself,she doesn't really know,and I don't buy it. Patsy,bless her heart,hasn't proven to be the brightest bulb,she accepts a lot of things without seeing the logic or lack of logic behind anything. Logically,if Patsy didn't put things out for her,Jonbenet would go to her underwear drawer and grab a pair before dressing,IMO,the killer pulled the Wednesdays out of the bag when deciding to grab the barbie nightgown,fresh underwear,fresh nightie.If Jonbenet had grabbed the big ones,she would have lost them several times before dressing,and would have switched them on her own for a pair that "stayed" up,probably yelled for Patsy,I hate this underwear find me the right ones. I want to know where the size six Wednesday panties are. This makes no sense that along with the other crazy elements to this crime, that the child just happened to have on the first pair from a package of huge ones. I'll add,that a kindergartener,who could spell Wednesday,would likely want it verified by some adult that it was ,indeed,Wednesday. "Mommy what day of the week is today",at least something along this line. "Can I open the new package,the one you bought for cousin......?" There would have been a dialogue,IMO.
I would have questions for LHP as well, there should be concern IMO about the lending of a wardrobe,down to the shoes,for the party,I am guessing maybe a bath and complete change of clothing. If this is the case,there was no time to return the clothing,however,there was mention of a brown bag with clothing near the door. Is there more then we know,would the police not question a bag of returned clothing?
Could someone from the LHP household dropped off the borrowed things while there to pick up a check early Thursday morning?
Could there be fibers in the underwear that match fibers from the rope(not cord),suggesting at one time these things were together in one "bag",brought into the home.
JMO
I would like the outfit worn by Arianna at the party checked as well,was it blue and brown,could the fibers match?

popcorn
01-25-2004, 06:03 AM
I would buy something like this as a gift. They weren't in the customary plastic bag but rolled up in a cute little vinyl tote case with a snap or zippered closure, not a sealed package like Hanes or Fruit of the Loom. I think any customer could have opened them and touched them at Bloomingdales. (somebody posted a picture years ago does anyone recall that or have access to it?)

Was the neice's DNA ever checked? Isn't Jenny, Polly's step daughter? Could the panties have been hers in the first place and Patsy had to borrow a pair in Atlanta after JonBenet had an accident? I wouldn't put it past the Ramseys to have gone and bought a replacement package after the murder to cover their tracks. Who wouldn't if would keep them out of prison.

I don't for a minute believe any investigating agency would have left such an important piece of evidence behind. It was obvious the panties were important evidence and the package would be a good source for fingerprints.

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 07:43 AM
DNA-x...I assumed meant DNA (unknown)..but..given all DNA is unknown until matched ,the "X" may have very well stood for "female",which does make sense.
Now what are we to think?

Ned: We went over this about a year ago, but some of you must have forgotten. DNA-x is referring to Mitochondrial DNA. Since the sample is incomplete, by cross referencing the female samples of DNA Scientists were trying to make a connection to any females that may have been related to the sample taken. Ariana's sample was taken because she would have been the approximate age appropriate to have worn size 12 panties, if in fact they had belonged to her any identifying markers could have pointed investigators to someone male related to Arianna. The DNA is positively confirmed as male, and yes the Ramsey's have been ruled out completely. Mr. Barnhill was the closest match to the sample, he however was never considered a serious suspect. Without more markers it can only at this point be used to rule out a suspect not completely identify one. I still have not yet read or confirmed there was enough markers present to run through codis. Perhaps so, but like Barnhill without more markers present you may get hundered of potential suspects or potential matches. This DNA sample will never match someone unless a suspect is brought forward with good cause to test.

LovelyPigeon
01-25-2004, 06:09 PM
Popcorn, stop. Think.

The panties were from Bloomingales. They were brand new and not washed.

The police had possession of the house from the time the body was found and 10 days afterward.

The Ramseys never went back into the house.

The investigators collected the package of panties after BPD was finished with their search.

sissi
01-25-2004, 06:59 PM
NED...Mr. Barnhill was the closest match to the sample, he however was never considered a serious suspect. Without more markers it can only at this point be used to rule out a suspect not completely identify one.

Barnhill was estranged from his son,who was in Boulder during the holiday,yet didn't stop in to see his father. I guess it never occurred to the BPD to question him or take a dna swab from him. I don't know what it takes to estrange oneself from family,but could guess "something's wrong with someone". I would like Keenan to dig into this one .....deeply! Could we think,old Barnhill was a "horrible father",or can we think,his son was a "horrible " son. On this topic ,I have one friend who was molested as a child,who when she had children of her own,reported his name to every juristiction in every state where he traveled ,for the protection of any and all children. Oh he was quite an impressive Christian man,charming,attractive ,very personable,a salesman whose job took him all over this country,and she feared for every little girl in his path.
He isn't young,he is 65!
JMO

LovelyPigeon
01-25-2004, 09:09 PM
I believe 10 markers are sufficient to identify a suspect.

sissi
01-25-2004, 10:00 PM
I believe you are right LP,however,could we not be given a percentage, albeit not court acceptable, for inclusion on less? I would have to research this,but I would expect something as small as four could statistically put you in the running,maybe something like "the chance of being the donor of the dna would be 1 in 1000.
Maybe one in 166,no matter ,it is a bit stronger than just saying "can't be excluded",which is my reasoning for suggesting looking at a "close relative" of ANYONE who wasn't excluded,a nephew..a son..a daughter..because within that lineage there may be the match!
JMO

Ivy
01-25-2004, 10:03 PM
LP, maybe we're not talking about the same thing, but...

CODIS is a fully integrated computerized collection of certain DNA characteristics from different donors. The F.B.I. selected 13 standard or core DNA markers (loci) that the criminal justice system will use to produce DNA profiles for the CODIS database.

http://www.mi-nafto.org/articles.htm

Toth
01-25-2004, 10:43 PM
And of those 13, atleast 10 must be present for the profile to be entered into the database. Many times the full 13 are present, for a variety of reasons many times they are not.

BlueCrab
01-26-2004, 12:14 AM
And of those 13, atleast 10 must be present for the profile to be entered into the database. Many times the full 13 are present, for a variety of reasons many times they are not.


Toth is right. The FBI chose 13 loci (locations) to collect the markers so the profiles can be standardized for comparison purposes before being put into the CODIS database. They would like at least 10 markers, although 13 would be ideal.

If less than ten markers are selected then the database might become logjammed simply by the numbers of profiles waiting to be entered into CODIS.

But fewer than 10 identifiable markers is better than none at all. Those profiles simply won't qualify to be entered into CODIS. San Diego, for instance, uses six markers just to reduce the number of suspect profiles down to a workable number when searching its database.

Incidentally, please remember that although CODIS is a federal system, ALL of the DNA profiles are stored in and owned by the individual states. CODIS acts like a giant central distributor to collect and distribute the information in the databases of the individual states. Some states aren't up to speed yet because of the costs involved.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Ivy
01-26-2004, 12:49 AM
I wasn't entirely sure what the 13 marker info I posted meant, though I did think it might have been referring to specifically selected markers rather than the number of markers required. Thanks for clarifying, guys.

sissi
01-28-2004, 06:15 PM
I am going to share a hunch,I know most don't like them but here goes.
I believe Patsy is mistaken about the panties,I believe the package was opened when Arianna borrowed a pair the night of the Santa party,this is the reason for checking her dna two years later,not to eliminate her but to prove she wore them.
They were laundered,and returned to the drawer but not to the package,this was the reason Jonbenet grabbed them. This would leave dna,two identified females,and one unidentified male to the mix that needed to be separated.
JMO for today

Islander
01-28-2004, 07:44 PM
Sissi: The Christmas party was on December 23. Neither Arianna nor her mom was reported to have visited the Ramsey home on either the 24th or the 25th. For your hunch to be correct, Arianna had to wear the panties to the party and then take them off before she went home. And to top that off, Patsy would have had to launder them. I don’t think so.

sissi
01-29-2004, 12:16 AM
During the questioning Patsy was asked about the panties,concerning the purchase,who they were purchased for,the packaging,and if she or LHP did the laundry. I do believe the line of questioning suggested they were laundered,even though Patsy didn't recall doing it.
JMO

popcorn
01-30-2004, 08:25 AM
Patsy Ramsey likely never owned an entire package of days of the week panties in size 12. (***before the murder***) Evidence shows a single pair which isn't how they are sold. To aquire a single pair you either have to borrowed or steal. Steve Thomas' book has the suggestion they were borrowed from a playmate yet someone has tried to convince us the foreign DNA was male. Both males and females were swabbed to try and match that DNA. It is within the realm that it was a deposit that couldn't be typed by sex.

Patsy says she bought a days of the week set as a gift for for Polly's step daughter, Jenny.

BUT

There were two other girls from Charlevoix, who were on the shopping trip when Patsy claims the panties were purchased. We have never read of any swabs or even interviews being done on these shopping companions. As in did Patsy borrow a pair from them on the NY trip after JonBenet had an accident. Especially towards the end of the trip when they may have been out of clean clothes? It has been revealed that JonBenet was having toileting troubles wearing pullups by day during this period.

popcorn
01-30-2004, 08:38 AM
18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start
19 with what - I will make it very simple for
20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you
21 in possession of or what do you know about
22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing
23 at the time she was found murdered?
24 A. I have heard that she had on a
25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

78
1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
9 them?
10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.
11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many
12 trips did you make to New York?
13 A. Two, I believe.
14 Q. Do you recall, and again, the
15 same, same qualification I gave you when we
16 started, which is, I understand that you are
17 not going to give me exact dates, but the
18 two trips you made, did you make those with
19 different groups of people?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The first trip, who was that trip
22 with?
23 A. The first trip was a
24 mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra
25 Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan

79
1 F**** from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her
2 daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms.
3 K****** I believe was her name, and her
4 daughter, and JonBenet and myself.

popcorn
01-30-2004, 08:52 AM
I will post the interview in it's entirety. LP posted it elsewhere but it is so important, so revealing. Wood fights having Patsy even discuss the panties yet they want us to believe it is thee most crucial piece of evidence. He would only fight if he knew there was something incriminating or there were questions he didn't have answers for. How does he defend the Ramseys without knowing? He must have no counscious at all or it died when his father killed his mother. :twocents:



8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, we
9 are going to move on to another area. And
10 what I want to discuss with you is the
11 underpants that JonBenet was wearing at the
12 time that she was discovered on the 26th.
13 We are going to try to get some background
14 information on those from you. Hopefully you
15 can help us out a little bit. Okay?
16 I don't, I'll be perfectly honest
17 with you, I don't follow all of the media
18 developments in this case, so I am not quite
19 sure what is out in the public sector. But
20 what I would like to get a feel for is just
21 what your belief is with regard to the
22 significance of the underpants that your
23 daughter was wearing at the time that she
24 was found murdered.
25 MR. WOOD: With all due fairness,

76
1 didn't you cover that in June of 1998?
2 MR. LEVIN: I don't believe so,
3 and I think that will become apparent.
4 MR. WOOD: Okay. Well, maybe if
5 you help me, just so I understand, when you
6 say what is the significance of it, are you
7 really just trying to find out what she
8 might know about why she was wearing them?
9 I am not sure what significance, with regard
10 to significance --
11 MR. LEVIN: What I would like to
12 know is what Mrs. Ramsey's belief, as she
13 sits here, is significant about the
14 underpants. In a normal homicide case, what
15 kind of underpants someone is wearing is
16 typically not national news. Fair enough?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 MR. LEVIN: But apparently it has
19 become national news, and I just want to get
20 a sense, before I start asking some specific
21 questions, which I hope she can help us
22 with, why you think, what is your
23 understanding of what the significance is.
24 MR. WOOD: Bruce, I don't know,
25 just so it is clear, I don't know that her

77
1 underwear has become national news.
2 Now, I don't know, sitting here
3 today, I may want to go back and look at
4 them, but it may be something that the
5 tabloids have written about, but I don't know
6 of any national news from reputable news
7 agencies that have made that a major issue.
8 But I am not arguing with that.
9 I just want to make sure I don't agree with
10 you by acquiescence, but --
11 MR. LEVIN: I understand.
12 MR. WOOD: - the question is, I
13 think he wants to know, and maybe I am still
14 not clear, you assume she attaches some
15 significance to it, but I am not sure. If
16 you asked her a factual question, maybe she
17 will understand.
18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start
19 with what - I will make it very simple for
20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you
21 in possession of or what do you know about
22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing
23 at the time she was found murdered?
24 A. I have heard that she had on a
25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

78
1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
9 them?
10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.
11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many
12 trips did you make to New York?
13 A. Two, I believe.
14 Q. Do you recall, and again, the
15 same, same qualification I gave you when we
16 started, which is, I understand that you are
17 not going to give me exact dates, but the
18 two trips you made, did you make those with
19 different groups of people?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The first trip, who was that trip
22 with?
23 A. The first trip was a
24 mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra
25 Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan

79
1 F**** from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her
2 daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms.
3 K****** I believe was her name, and her
4 daughter, and JonBenet and myself.
5 Q. And the second trip you made was?
6 A. The second trip we made was with
7 Glen and Susan Stein.
8 Q. Is that the trip -- which trip
9 was the November trip?
10 A. With the children.
11 Q. Was that -- that is the first
12 trip?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the second trip that you and
15 your husband and the Steins took, was that
16 also November, but later in the month, or
17 was that a December trip?
18 A. I think it was December.
19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your
20 memory as to time. I believe that was the
21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Were you out of town?

80
1 A. I remember that.
2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
3 purchase the Bloomi's?
4 A. The first trip.
5 Q. Was it something that was selected
6 by JonBenet?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. Was it your intention, when you
9 purchased those, for those to be for her,
10 not for some third party as a gift?
11 A. I bought some things that were
12 gifts and some things for her. So I
13 don't --
14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is
15 your best recollection that the purchase of
16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the
17 week, was something that you bought for her,
18 whether it was just I am buying underwear
19 for my kids or these are special, here's a
20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your
21 intention that she would wear those?
22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
23 package of the -- they came in a package of
24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
25 I think I bought a package to give to my

81
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny D*****.
4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny D*****, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a matter of fact --

82
1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a
2 matter --
3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old
4 child?
5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
6 a matter of fact.
7 MR. WOOD: Don't fit her
8 according to whose standard?
9 MR. LEVIN: By --
10 MR. WOOD: I mean, I have got an
11 11-year-old boy, and he wears underwear that
12 potentially hangs down to his knees, Bruce.
13 I mean, I don't know how you can come up
14 with that as a fact. That sounds to me
15 like more of an opinion. Who states that as
16 fact?
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your
18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;
19 correct?
20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
21 Q. She was six years old?
22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

83
1 Q. Ms. Ramsey, would you say that it
2 would, it is safe to assume that, if she is
3 wearing underpants designed for someone who
4 weighs 85 pounds, who is 10 to 12 years old,
5 that those would not fit her?
6 A. Those -- I mean, I am sure she
7 could wear them, yes, but they wouldn't fit
8 as well as a smaller pair.
9 Q. And as a mother, you would know
10 that someone who is 85 pounds is
11 significantly larger than your little
12 six-year-old?
13 MR. WOOD: Can't we assume that
14 as a matter of 85 is more than 45 without
15 her having to document a mathematical fact,
16 Bruce?
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) 40 pounds is the
18 wrong size pair of underpants, would you
19 agree?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to
22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
23 understand why she is wearing such a large
24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
25 help us if you have a recollection of it.

84
1 A. I am sure that I put the package
2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
3 them and put them on.
4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought
5 these sometime in mid to early December, is
6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,
7 you bought them in November?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing
10 these? And I don't mean this specific day
11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you
12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in
13 this package of underpants and had been
14 wearing them since the trip to New York in
15 November?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the
18 laundry for the family, that is part of her
19 duties; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash
22 clothes on occasion?
23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.
24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

85
1 A. Not specifically.

popcorn
01-30-2004, 08:57 AM
2 Q. Was it something that, the fact
3 that she is wearing these underpants designed
4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and
5 I will give you a minute to think about it
6 because I know it is tough to try to pin
7 down a couple of months of casual
8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any
9 conversations with her concerning the fact
10 that she is wearing underwear that is just
11 too large for her?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it
14 was, if it had caught your attention or came
15 to your attention, do you think you might
16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't
17 fit, put something on that fits, that is
18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
19 had come to your attention --
20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
21 package had been opened, we made the
22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
25 so.

86
1 I mean, if you have ever seen
2 these little panties, there is not too much
3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm
4 sure even if they were a little bit big,
5 they were special because we got them up
6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they
7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was
8 fine with me.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see
10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?
11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?

87
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.
13 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time,
14 how old was Jenny?
15 A. I don't know. Probably -- I
16 don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but
17 I don't know exactly how old she was.
18 Q. Would these panties, size wise, be
19 more appropriate for -- is she an older
20 girl?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I assume a larger girl?
23 A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I
24 mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a
25 young woman, but then she was a little girl.

88
1 Q. How old is she now?
2 A. She is now 15, I believe.
3 Q. So she would have been about 12
4 or somewhere --
5 A. 11.
6 Q. -- 11, 12?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. And based on the, I guess,
9 dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about,
10 these would have been a size appropriate for
11 her?
12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
13 MR. WOOD: Do you know that?
14 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Based on your
15 knowledge of her? I mean, I never have seen
16 this girl, so --
17 MR. WOOD: Guys, I think -- if
18 you all have kids, I mean, I just think you
19 are making assumptions based on poundage,
20 apparently, that isn't necessarily, you know,
21 in touch with the realities with kids and
22 their clothes. But you know, if you know
23 that, Patsy, please tell them.
24 Why don't you go ahead and
25 restate your question.

89
1 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) You purchased
2 these specifically for a person?
3 A. Okay.
4 MR. WOOD: Is that your
5 recollection?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 MR. WOOD: Okay.
8 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And I assume
9 you wanted them to fit her and she be able
10 to wear them or there would be no sense in
11 purchasing them; right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Okay. Would the size that has
14 been described here be appropriate for the
15 size of the girl you purchased them for?
16 A. I was guessing at her size, so I
17 had hoped that they would be.
18 Q. Now, we have talked -- you know,
19 the fact that a boy may wear boxer shorts
20 that go down to his ankles --
21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
22 Q. --has nothing to do with girls,
23 when you purchase girl's panties; right?
24 MR. WOOD: Come on, Mitch.
25 Mitch --

90
1 THE WITNESS: I mean, if --
2 MR. WOOD: Don't answer that.
3 That's not a --
4 MR. MORRISSEY: It is different.
5 MR. WOOD: I made the statement
6 because of my kids, but let me just tell
7 you, my nine-year-old daughter likes to wear
8 my XL T-shirts. I mean, you are asking now
9 about the realm of kids, and I don't think
10 that is a factual question that she is
11 really here to give you information about.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Mrs. Ramsey, I
13 never purchased a pair of girl's panties.
14 Okay.
15 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) What do you
16 do, I mean, when you do that, what do you
17 think about as far as the person you're
18 purchasing them for?
19 A. Well, you just look, small,
20 medium, large, you know, and you pick the
21 one you think would most likely fit.
22 Q. And do they have age groups or
23 are they suggested for like a 10-year-old
24 through a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old
25 through a 15-year-old? Do they do it that

91
1 way too?
2 A. I never paid any attention if
3 they do.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay.
5 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it
6 this way. Did you say you bought more than
7 one set of Bloomi's?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?
10 A. I can't remember.
11 Q. Why is it that you remember
12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of
13 1996?
14 A. Because --
15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers
16 it. I mean --
17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.
18 Would you please let her answer the question?
19 It is a simple question.
20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you
21 remember something?
22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you
23 remember --
24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that

92
1 detail?
2 A. Well, for starters, it has been
3 made such a big detail.
4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.
5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you
6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and
7 it was close to Christmas season, so we
8 might pick up a little souvenir. I
9 bought -- I think I picked up a little
10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.
11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --

93
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to

94
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. - that was in the house.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
15 you know, that is something that was in this
16 house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- that belonged to your daughter,
19 these panties?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.

95
1 Q. Did Lou Schmidt ever show you a
2 photo?
3 A. No.
4 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I want to follow
5 up with something you said earlier. You
6 said she would have just gone in and gotten
7 a pair herself?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. Okay. Was she -- did she usually
10 dress herself?
11 A. She was pretty much able to dress
12 herself.

sissi
01-30-2004, 10:02 AM
I am sticking with my hunch,Arianna borrowed a pair,it may not have been at the party,it may have been the week before,Patsy was unaware that they were borrowed, laundered and returned to an undie drawer ,separate from the package of new ones.

Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the
18 laundry for the family, that is part of her
19 duties; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash
22 clothes on occasion?
23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.
24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

IMO JMO

Shylock
01-30-2004, 10:08 AM
I am sticking with my hunch,Arianna borrowed a pair,it may not have been at the party,it may have been the week before,Patsy was unaware that they were borrowed, laundered and returned to an undie drawer ,separate from the package of new ones.
I don't know about you, but I can certainly tell if a pair of underwear has been laundered or is new right out of the package.

popcorn
01-30-2004, 10:31 AM
When they've only been laundered once or twice it may be hard to tell, it depends on hot vs cold water, weither or not bleach is used and of course maybe they used Cheer.

And Sissi, this doesn't account for the fact there was no set, no other size 12s. But about Arianna- take it a step more than borrowing a pair and include she also may have left a pair, in particular the size 12 Bloomingdales. Would LHP have know every type of panty or recognized that as Arianna's if asked? Doubtful.

BlueCrab
01-30-2004, 10:49 AM
The important thing to remember about the underwear is they were size 12, a size WAY to big for her. There were no pullups at the crime scene, and neither were JonBenet's normal size 6 underwear found at the crime scene. Therefore, the ridiculous size 12 underwear were put on JonBenet after she was dead and had been wiped down. The motive was obviously to try to cover up the sexual assault.

Common sense tells us that one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house that night had something to do with the crime. So who, after sexually molesting and killing JonBenet, would remove her size 6 panties from the crime scene, go upstairs to get a clean pair of panties, and put them on JonBenet, not realizing the underwear were twice as big as they should have been?

John and Patsy would have known better. Burke would not have known better. Burke did it.

JMO

popcorn
01-30-2004, 10:59 AM
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to

94
1 eight.

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

This is out of Patsy at the interview and glossed over. Boulder has to be in on any conspiracy and I agree that BURKE is the likely reason. I don't think it was a sexual game with asyphixation or anything fancy like that though. Just ordinary everyday sibling abuse.

Imon128
01-30-2004, 11:04 AM
I'm not convinced JB was killed in the wine cellar making it the only crime scene, and because of my belief, JB's undies that were her size might have been put in the laundry by the perp, or might have been the ones left on the floor in JB's room area (see NE's Police File book for that info). Regardless, unless Patsy has recall of JB's undies being too large, and she should have since she put longjohns on her after coming home from the Whites, it's still uncertain if JB had put the oversized ones on herself in the night, prior to the perp doing his deed. Just some thoughts, here.

why_nutt
01-30-2004, 11:13 AM
The important thing to remember about the underwear is they were size 12, a size WAY to big for her.

JMO

To those who want to claim that the underwear were not too big, just a bit roomy, I ask the question: Why, if size 12 was not an unreasonable size for JonBenet to wear, did Patsy just not regularly buy size 12 underwear, knowing they would last much longer as JonBenet grew into them? Buying clothes too big for JonBenet was not an unknown factor for Patsy. In the 1993 and 1994 family Christmas videos, JonBenet can be seen wearing the same red plaid nightgown from year to year, with the sleeves being somewhat shorter on her in 1994 compared to how they were in 1993. And you see this black and white checked dress?

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/cowboyhat1.jpg

It appears to make a return as something Patsy was packing for the trip on the Disney Big Red Boat:

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/jarclutter.jpg

Barbara
01-30-2004, 12:03 PM
This may have been speculated about before, but perhaps Patsy decided to keep the size 12 because they are a good fit OVER pull ups and the like.

Some of the handicapped persons I work with in adult diapers, like to have nice underwear as well, so they are purchased large to fit over the diapers.

Just another theory

Toth
01-30-2004, 12:16 PM
JonBenet was NOT killed in the wine cellar, her corpse was hidden there but she was not killed there.

Ivy
01-30-2004, 12:43 PM
Here we go again. Toth, how would you know that? Were you there?

BlueCrab
01-30-2004, 12:54 PM
The consensus of investigators is that JonBenet was killed in the basement.

JMO

Ivy
01-30-2004, 12:54 PM
Patsy said the size 12 panties were purchased to give to an older child as a gift, but I agree the truth may be that she bought them for JonBenet to wear over her pullup diapers.

Police speculated that JonBenet was changed into the size 12 "Wednesday" panties after her death to give the false impression that they were the same panties she had worn on Christmas, since Christmas 1996 was on a Wednesday. Police believed this was merely part of the Ramseys' coverup.

To sissi... If Arianna had borrowed a pair of the size 12 day-of-the-week panties, why would she have chosen the Wednesday panties? She didn't borrow clothing to wear on Christmas Day.

tipper
01-30-2004, 12:59 PM
Have I missed something? Jonbenet normally wore size 8-10 underwear. The ones she was found in were 12-14. So actually they were only one size too big. My daughter's underwear looks like it was made for a 4 year old but when she puts it on it fits.

BlueCrab
01-30-2004, 01:12 PM
Have I missed something? Jonbenet normally wore size 8-10 underwear. The ones she was found in were 12-14. So actually they were only one size too big. My daughter's underwear looks like it was made for a 4 year old but when she puts it on it fits.

Not true. She never wore size 8-10. There were no underwear of that size in the house.

All of the underwear in JonBenet's drawer, the ones she would wear daily, were size 4 and size 6. Kane in 2000 interview in Atlanta regarding the panties removed by the police: "And every one of those was either a size four or a size six".

JMO

sissi
01-30-2004, 01:35 PM
[QUOTE=Imon128]I'm not convinced JB was killed in the wine cellar making it the only crime scene, and because of my belief, JB's undies that were her size might have been put in the laundry by the perp, or might have been the ones left on the floor in JB's room area (see NE's Police File book for that info). Regardless, unless Patsy has recall of JB's undies being too large, and she should have since she put longjohns on her after coming home from the Whites, it's still uncertain if JB had put the oversized ones on herself in the night, prior to the perp doing his deed. Just some thoughts, here.[/QUOTE

This makes sense to me up to the Patsy part,I really believe she hasn't thought the panty issue through,she could have noticed,didn't,so should have just stated that it made no sense to her. She's guessing,and it makes her look bad. IMO she didn't kill her child,nor did any member of that household. I wish we knew if the police have her size 6 ones,the ones from her package ,if not maybe the perp took them as a souvenir.
jmo

Imon128
01-30-2004, 01:50 PM
In that case, sissi, Patsy most likely would have put longjohns on JonBenet, with no underpants, in my thinking.

sissi
01-30-2004, 06:36 PM
In that case, sissi, Patsy most likely would have put longjohns on JonBenet, with no underpants, in my thinking.


It would be a lot easier to discuss if we had more information. Wasn't Jonbenet wearing a velvet pants outfit? As someone pointed out yesterday,the velvet fuzz would have clung to the panties,not just a fiber ,here and there,but "lotsa'" fuzz! If no such "fuzz" is clinging to the large Wednesdays,then she clearly didn't have them on all day. If there were panties found with "lotsa'" fuzz ,on the floor,then it would surely seem sensible to believe she was changed after coming home. This panty deal is very important! We can only hope someone in the investigation tested panties for fibers and dye bleeding on the outer surfaces. If they didn't,I suggest Keenan consider this.
JMO

Imon128
01-30-2004, 06:59 PM
What if JB hadn't worn underpants to the Whites or to bed, (either or) when Patsy put the longjohns on JB?

popcorn
01-30-2004, 07:20 PM
The reverse side of velvet isn't fuzzy, I don't think there would be evidence stuck to her panties unless she had worn the pants insideout.

I wouldn't bother suggesting anything to Keenan, she's on the take - either for money or morally to protect Burke. :twocents:

Toltec
01-30-2004, 07:48 PM
JonBenet wore tights to the Whites...so the tights would have come in contact with her panties.

Patsy is lying through her teeth. JonBenet was tiny and I know for a fact that she could have still wore a size 4. Mothers typically buy size 6 for a normal 6 year old, size 8 for an 8 yo, etc... A size twelve is twice as large...and if you expect me to believe that Patsy did not notice washing large panties...then I've got a log cabin to sell you.

Arianna was visiting on 23 december...if she had changed into size 12 panties, she would have picked the right day of the week.

Everyone knows if brand new underwear are washed...what a bunch of baloney!

popcorn
01-30-2004, 08:11 PM
Not only is Patsy lying but the DA allows it.

sissi
01-30-2004, 11:58 PM
Imon,I never thought about her not wearing undies,but I suppose if the tights were like panty hose it would be a possibility.
Popcorn,I know the inside isn't fuzzy,yet something about velvet does leave fuzzy residue on undergarments.
Toltec,thanks,I didn't know about the tights,these fibers would surely be on the undies wouldn't they?
and..Popcorn...IMO the Ramseys are innocent!
JMO