PDA

View Full Version : Question



Pages : [1] 2

Barbara
01-21-2004, 10:41 AM
Defenders of the Ramsey have made much effort to convince the rest of us that the DNA from JBR is MALE AND NON RAMSEY.

In 1998 or 1999, the authorities came to take a sample of DNA from ARIANA PUGH?

What is the explanation for this? Since some are emphatic that this is male, non Ramsey DNA without any legitimate source to back that up, what is the explanation for taking FEMALE DNA samples?

Jayelles
01-21-2004, 10:58 AM
As I posted on another thread, the taking of DNA from Ariana Pugh ties in with the discovery and testing of DNA-x.

Beckner said:-


Here Beckner is talking about Chris Wolf's DNA

21 Q Was it compared to DNAX?
22 A The lab would have to answer that.
23 Q Well, would you have expected it to be?
24 A Not necessarily.
25 Q Why?


128

1 A Well, if -- hypothetically?
2 MR. MILLER: No, not hypothetically.
3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I would rather you --
4 A I don't know how to answer it without
5 giving away information.

I hypothesise that DNA-x was female and that is why it wasn't necessary to test Wolf's DNA.

Ariana Pugh's DNA sample was taken in January 1999.

Barbara
01-21-2004, 11:31 AM
Thanks Jayelles,

What is the explanation for this a la Lin Wood, Ramsey defenders, etc? Anyone know?

BlueCrab
01-21-2004, 11:45 AM
DNA-x, whether male or female, may be further narrowed down to ethnic ancestry by the new DNA Witness analysis developed in 2003 (please refer to the Susanna Chase thread).

JMO

why_nutt
01-21-2004, 11:47 AM
I hypothesise that DNA-x was female and that is why it wasn't necessary to test Wolf's DNA.

Ariana Pugh's DNA sample was taken in January 1999.

And we have this from the December 4th, 1998 Rocky Mountain News:

Police will collect DNA samples and palm prints from five relatives of JonBenet Ramsey in the Atlanta area next week.

...

Pam Paugh, JonBenet's aunt, said she is among the five relatives who will provide mouth swabs and palm prints. She said the other four are Don and Nedra Paugh, JonBenet's maternal grandparents, Polly Paugh Davis, and Polly's husband, Grant Davis.

...

Pam Paugh said it was her understanding that the DNA evidence, which will be compared to the DNA from the five relatives, "is not the DNA found under her fingernails."

So if the DNA in the panties has been deemed by the Ramsey defense to be the same DNA as under JonBenet's nails, and the DNA taken from the Paugh relatives was not to be compared to the nail DNA, then, as history has shown, the likelihood is large that DNA-x was the comparison standard, and perhaps was itself degraded in a way which prevented its gender from being known, requiring both male and female DNA samples to be taken, with Arianna Pugh caught up in the renewed net of sample-taking.

Toth
01-21-2004, 11:51 AM
I don't know that they took a sample from Ariana Pugh but if they did it might be because they were unable to get a sample from her father or because they feel it is remotely possible that more than one intruder was present that night.
It is also possible that certain items found in the home such as the rope or the paper sack were swabbed and yielded dna which might or might not have been from the intruder.

Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna.

why_nutt
01-21-2004, 11:51 AM
DNA-x, whether male or female, may be further narrowed down to ethnic ancestry by the new DNA Witness analysis developed in 2003 (please refer to the Susanna Chase thread).

JMO

There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?

Jayelles
01-21-2004, 11:57 AM
Thank you for posting that.

(Drat.)

BlueCrab
01-21-2004, 12:28 PM
There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?

IMO the example you gave would considerably narrow down the donor of that DNA to very few people and perhaps down to only one suspect, depending on the circumstances of the case.

This DNA Witness thing may become BIG.

JMO

why_nutt
01-21-2004, 12:42 PM
IMO the example you gave would considerably narrow down the donor of that DNA to very few people and perhaps down to only one suspect, depending on the circumstances of the case.

This DNA Witness thing may become BIG.

JMO

With a good, clean, strong DNA sample, perhaps. Have you looked at the site for DNAPrint? They require two thousand markers in a sample to conduct what they call pan-genome coverage. The Chase case is not known to have had problems with degraded samples, just with no matches to be found in the information they had. But if the Ramsey case can barely eke out 10 markers, well, you can see why the Ramsey case may not benefit from this particular magic bullet.

BlueCrab
01-21-2004, 12:54 PM
Perhaps the reason Beckner alluded to the fact that Chris Wolf's DNA would not have to be compared to DNA-x had nothing to do with gender.

For instance, maybe the GJ had indeed solved the crime in 1999 and there were children involved. But DNA evidence and other evidence existed that someone, an unknown but older accomplice, had slipped between the cracks and, because of known circumstances, that unknown accomplice could NOT have been Chris Wolf.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 02:29 PM
The first explanation for foreign DNA being in JonBenét's panties was that she had "exchanged panties" with a playmate. Since the underwear was feminine, that would indicate a girl playmate. Girl playmates' parents were contacted for DNA samples.

I suppose the male dna was hoped to be innocent parent or SO dna in the playmate's panties.

None of that ever made sense to me.

Barbara
01-21-2004, 02:58 PM
I don't know that they took a sample from Ariana Pugh but if they did it might be because they were unable to get a sample from her father or because they feel it is remotely possible that more than one intruder was present that night.
It is also possible that certain items found in the home such as the rope or the paper sack were swabbed and yielded dna which might or might not have been from the intruder.

Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna.

Why wouldn't they get a sample from Merv? The Pughs were more cooperative than the Ramseys and they didn't even have lawyers, knowing full well that they were thrown under that bus. As drunk as you like to paint Merv, there was never an instance where he was too out of it to speak to the investigators, something that cannot be said about the parents who had, or should I say should have had the most motivation to speak to investigators and CHOSE not to.

As for your last statement, we DONT know that yet. What if it turns out to be a Ramsey? I realize of course that the RST is not yet willing to accept the palm print and hair belonging to Melinda and Patsy respectively as there is no official source. Fair enough. But along those lines of thinking, we also do not know for sure if the DNA is Ramsey or non Ramsey.

With all due respect Toth, your word isn't enough to make it fact.

Barbara
01-21-2004, 03:01 PM
The first explanation for foreign DNA being in JonBenét's panties was that she had "exchanged panties" with a playmate. Since the underwear was feminine, that would indicate a girl playmate. Girl playmates' parents were contacted for DNA samples.

I suppose the male dna was hoped to be innocent parent or SO dna in the playmate's panties.

None of that ever made sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.

Jayelles
01-21-2004, 03:11 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.

Do you not mean 12 hours or so? - which is even more puzzling...

BlueCrab
01-21-2004, 03:22 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.


The age of the DNA is not the only factor that tends to degrade DNA. For instance, a large wet sample may degrade as it's drying and be in worse shape than a tiny sample that dried quickly.

JMO

Ivy
01-21-2004, 03:40 PM
When Hunter ordered a sample of Ariana Pugh's DNA be taken, it was during the time he was presenting evidence to the grand jury. He might have just been tying up loose ends, making sure all the i's were dotted and t's crossed in his presentation. Ariana's fingerprints had been taken soon after JonBenet's death. Maybe she was inadvertently overlooked when DNA samples were being taken from the Pugh family and friends.

OTOH, Ariana and JonBenet had spent quite a bit of time together on December 23, putting on makeup, and maybe Hunter suddenly realized that if JonBenet's undies hadn't been changed in a couple days, the mystery DNA could be Ariana's through secondary transfer.

Barbara
01-21-2004, 03:45 PM
Do you not mean 12 hours or so? - which is even more puzzling...

Thanks Jayelles,

Yes, I meant 12 hours or so. Maybe the perp/s used self destructing DNA :)

Maxi
01-21-2004, 04:43 PM
LP, I think the problem is that they didn't, and maybe still don't, know how many contributors there were to that DNA. If it's really mixed, it will be hard to determine which markers belong to which contributor.

My theory on why the DNA was degraded is that the degraded DNA was old stuff that just happened to be under JBR's fingernails when she scratched herself. I've seen so many little girls do that. The big question is is there was also fresh foreign DNA. Even then, the DNA seems to be such a tiny trace that it really is not a typical DNA case. There is just too much wiggle room for any potential defendant to say the tiny trace was deposited innocently via secondary transfer.

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 04:49 PM
My theory is that the DNA isn't degraded.

The testing of the 2nd spot of blood apparently was able to recover at least 10 markers of DNA sufficient to submit to CODIS.

Ivy
01-21-2004, 05:05 PM
LP, my understanding is that the sample had to be amplified before there were enough markers to enter into the database. Often what appear to be additional markers in PCR amplification are really just stutter bands, indicative of a false positive result.

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 05:07 PM
Ivy, what do you base your understanding upon?

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 05:14 PM
Maxi, let's say the male DNA eventually is "matched" to someone who lived 2 blocks away from the Rs in 1996, but was not known to the Rs, had never been invited to their home, had never been in contact with JonBenét...

Would you think that his DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties could be innocently explained away?

Maxi
01-21-2004, 05:22 PM
If the guy lived in the same city, I think a defense attorney could make a case for reasonable doubt on the DNA. The sample was supposedly mixed, the DNA just trace, maybe degraded or mixed with degraded, and partial. Not to mention that much DNA technology is still somewhat controversial.

Now, if they find a guy who has used the same MO, same signature, and was known to be in the area at the time, I think the DNA could be used to support a case. But not to make one.

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 05:26 PM
But what we were led to believe about the DNA from the BPD turns out not to be accurate. There is sufficient DNA of sufficient quality to submit the sample to CODIS.

I don't think a jury would believe that some innocent transfer caused a man's DNA to be mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties.

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 05:31 PM
P.S.--the thread "A break in the Susannah Chase" has locked up for me. Anybody else having trouble with it?

Ivy
01-21-2004, 05:54 PM
LovelyPigeon, I base my understanding that the sample was amplified on articles I've read about the DNA being entered into the FBI database. Here's an excerpt from one of the articles:

Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

Source (http://24hour.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/1099717p-7692328c.html)

Maxi
01-21-2004, 06:58 PM
If JBR scratched herself, depositing the DNA on or near her genitals or in her underwear, it could then mix easily with the blood from the sexual assault. If the DNA is indeed degraded, that's the only thing that makes sense to me (other than Sum Yung Gai). Of course, old DNA have been deposited on JBR from the fingernails whoever scratched her hymen -- and that could be his/her DNA or someone with whom he or she had come in contact.

What do you think might be the source of the foreign DNA (skin cells, saliva, etc.?) and why such a tiny amount?

Maxi
01-21-2004, 07:01 PM
P.S.--the thread "A break in the Susannah Chase" has locked up for me. Anybody else having trouble with it?

I can see all of it, and it let me post. What's it doing for you?

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 07:05 PM
maxi, that thread just keeps "loading" and won't stop for me. I have to reboot after I've clicked on it and get frozen.

Toth
01-21-2004, 07:49 PM
I don't think a jury would believe that some innocent transfer caused a man's DNA to be mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties.I sure hope not! It would be a real challenge for a defense lawyer to come up with some explanation for his dna being under her fingernails, but in her panties? No way!

Ivy
01-21-2004, 08:33 PM
Is there a reliable source stating that the underpants DNA and fingernail DNA match? An ABC news article (the page is no longer available) stated that they do not match.

Wood contends that the underwear DNA and the fingernail DNA have "as many as" a half-dozen markers in common. So, the remaining markers are non-matching, right?

popcorn
01-21-2004, 10:56 PM
It's hard to believe that out of thousands of markers the same measley 8 or less showed identically under the nails and in the panties. That's as good as the magic bullet theory in the JFK assassination. As they checked males and females the DNA is either from both and thereful does not match or can't be sexed period. To say that the foreign DNA deposits are male and match goes not only against every reliable source but against common sense.

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 11:10 PM
Ivy, Lou Smit has said in televised interviews that the male dna from fingernail clippings and male dna from panties is consistent with each other.

Imon128
01-21-2004, 11:13 PM
LP, Smit is the only source I've known to have said that, too. Was he still on the case when that testing was done? I'm not sure where HE got that idea.

Ivy
01-21-2004, 11:13 PM
LP, thanks, but after seeing his Power Point presentation on TV, I don't consider LS a reliable source for information on the case.

LovelyPigeon
01-21-2004, 11:26 PM
Yes, he was still on the case when the first dna testing was done.

Smit has not been contradicted about male dna from any case insider that I've heard of.

Ivy
01-22-2004, 12:22 AM
LP, all case insiders these days are members of the RST, or, like Keenan, are smooching up to them. There's no one left to contradict Smit.

Shylock
01-22-2004, 01:16 AM
Ivy, Lou Smit has said in televised interviews that the male dna from fingernail clippings and male dna from panties is consistent with each other.
Smit also said that a blue line (vein) on her back was caused by an electrical arc.
I wouldn't trust Smit's understanding of ANYTHING technical in nature, he's shown himself to be not the brightest bulb.

Shylock
01-22-2004, 01:27 AM
It would be a real challenge for a defense lawyer to come up with some explanation for his dna being under her fingernails, but in her panties? No way!
I disagree (does that surprise you Toth?). Seeing little girls DO have a tendency to make trips to the bathroom, anything on their hands can easily be explained as simple transfer to their underwear.

Toth, lets pretend a little girl is running home from a birthday party and gets hit and killed by a car. The coroner finds chocolate under her fingernails and a trace of chocolate in her panties. Are you going to contrive some big sexual crime story about it or just explain it as simple secondary transfer from a bathroom break after eating birthday cake?

WolfmarsGirl
01-22-2004, 02:36 AM
...Toth, lets pretend a little girl is running home from a birthday party and gets hit and killed by a car...

Oh! Shylock, that is a terrible thing to pretend. :eek:


...The coroner finds chocolate under her fingernails and a trace of chocolate in her panties. Are you going to contrive some big sexual crime story about it or just explain it as simple secondary transfer from a bathroom break after eating birthday cake?

Even though I agree with you :rolleyes: .
:)

BlueCrab
01-22-2004, 10:06 AM
With a good, clean, strong DNA sample, perhaps. Have you looked at the site for DNAPrint? They require two thousand markers in a sample to conduct what they call pan-genome coverage. The Chase case is not known to have had problems with degraded samples, just with no matches to be found in the information they had. But if the Ramsey case can barely eke out 10 markers, well, you can see why the Ramsey case may not benefit from this particular magic bullet.

As information only (to clarify the 2,000 marker comment):

The new "DNA Witness" technology is not hampered by requiring a crime scene sample as few as 2,000 markers. A drop of blood so small you could barely see it with the naked eye would contain more than 2,000 markers.

The human body contains about 10 trillion cells, each of them identical to the other. There are 46 chromosomes in each of those cells, and each of those chromosomes contain one very long coiled strand of DNA.

Your little finger alone contains about 5 billion identical cells, each cell packed with 46 chromosomes containing identical strands of DNA.

IOW, 2,000 markers would be an extremely tiny DNA sample from a crime scene. Quantity is not usually the problem with crime scene DNA samples -- and as you correctly state about the JonBenet case -- condition of the samples are usually the problem.

Just my opinion

BlueCrab

sissi
01-22-2004, 11:14 AM
Have they identified the "source" of the dna in terms of fluid/skin/hair?
Could it be the dna under her nails was from skin scrapings,and the dna taken from her underwear was either from blood,sweat..saliva?
The ability to match 6 markers if from two different mediums would be huge. IMO

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 12:52 PM
Steve Thomas in his hardback edition p268 identifies the DNA as male.

BPD chief Beckner has said that the DNA from the Ramsey case was compared to Michael Helgoth and Gary Oliva. Both of those men are male.

Lou Smit has said publically that the foreign DNA found on JonBenét was from a male, and that it was not from John, Patsy, or Burke.

I don't think there is now or ever has been any forensic question that the DNA in question is male, and that it does not match any Ramsey.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 12:59 PM
It might be a tad misleading to say it doesn't belong to a Ramsey. The key indicatior is that it can't be identified, period. Right?

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 01:21 PM
Imon, there are at least 10 markers. The Ramseys and their extended family were swabbed for DNA samples.

The DNA has been submitted to CODIS.

If the DNA matched any Ramsey, it would not now be submitted to CODIS, looking for a *match* to DNA now, or to be submitted or included at some date, inside that databank.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 01:26 PM
In that case, it would then eliminate McSanta, Fleet White, Barnhill's boarder, Pugh, and all other males that get thrown in mistakenly, methinks.

If it were a Ramsey, simply submitting to CODIS wouldn't eliminate that person as it would take a previous reason to have it in CODIS to begin with. If this was an accident/first time death, there wouldn't be anything in CODIS to compare to, right? That would eliminate 'eliminating' by CODIS, IMO.

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 01:33 PM
Imon, do you believe that the Ramseys' DNA samples were not compared to the male DNA found under the nails and in the underwear? Perhaps you have forgotten that there has been shown on CBS a copy of one document that showed such a comparison.

The Ramseys do not match the foreign DNA on JonBenét, nor the DNA-X, wherever it may have been found.

sissi
01-22-2004, 01:34 PM
LP,I agree,there has never been a question concerning "that" dna,however,I do wonder if there is another ,the dna-x,x perhaps indicating female,that needed to be sourced before moving forward with "it"as an issue. This is the only reason I can place on the late testing of Arianna.
Remember the "housemaid/nursing shoe prints",Sas I believe,that were brought up around the same time as the Hi-tecs? In the early days,it was said there were many prints, now we are down to ONE? There is some evidence being held from the public,very little, given the leaks,and since Thomas seemed in his depo to be so uninformed,so removed from the area of evidence,we can "assume", as he did throughout his questioning,some things ourselves,I am assuming there was more than one hitec print,and that it was found in the bedroom,I am assuming,as well,that along side of one of these prints was a "sas" one. I don't know what this means as far as suspects,but I think it has presented a bit of a dilemma , meaning there could have been a woman involved ,
as well. JMO

Imon128
01-22-2004, 01:36 PM
From what I've read in Steve's book, the Ramseys can't be nailed nor exculpated by the DNA.

Also, some DNA will never be attributed to JB's killer. It's just stutter. Also, I have no faith in Smit's blather.

Britt
01-22-2004, 01:38 PM
The Ramseys do not match the foreign DNA on JonBenét, nor the DNA-X, wherever it may have been found.
:waitasec: How do you know the DNA-X doesn't match a Ramsey?

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 01:57 PM
Britt, you could read up the thread for some other posts, but the bottom line is that no one in law enforcement claims the Ramseys match any DNA found on JonBenét.

Former DA Hunter, former policeman Steve Thomas, former detective Lou Smit, Judge Carnes, the present DA, Lin Wood, etc etc have all conceded that there is foreign male DNA that was found on JonBenét and that it does not match a Ramsey.

If it did match a Ramsey, there would have been no need to compare that DNA to the extended family of the Ramseys, to playmates, to other case characters, to Oliva, to Helgoth, or now, to the entire dna database of the FBI.

Yes, it's obvious that CODIS has not yet yielded a "hit" on the male DNA sample submitted from the Ramsey case, but that certainly does not mean that it can't or won't any day now or sometime in the future.

Not only is there a backlog of entering and comparing samples, but there are new samples lining up to be added every day. There are reports of old--some MUCH older than 1996--being solved with DNA. Some of those didn't "hit" on a match in a databank previously and have just now been able to match because of a new entry. Some are based on better technology, or the discovery of DNA on old evidence items.

Others, like this case, finally found a "hit" on a man who had no previous DNA sample in any database. A lab tech in Oregon compared 500 samples over 2 years before the hit was made--and that was on someone who knew the victim but had never been considered a suspect previously!

Police say DNA link cracked UP case
Two years after the May 2001 killing, police had no leads, but a DNA match starts "the real work" of building a case
01/18/04
TOM QUINN and PETER FARRELL Deniz Aydiner was not a suspect in the 2001 killing of Kate Johnson in a University of Portland dormitory until after police collected a DNA sample from him last year, and people who knew them both say they never thought he would be accused of harming her. --->>
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1074430620212660.xml

Imon128
01-22-2004, 01:59 PM
Even if DNA matched a Ramsey, they could try dismiss it as normal, since the household was shared by victim and the other household members. It needs to be tied to the crime.

Toth
01-22-2004, 02:02 PM
My understanding of CODIS is a bit lacking.
does it contain dna profiles from arrestees, or persons who are convicted or does it also contain profiles from suspects other than those arrested or convicted?

In other words: We know that Gary Oliva was convicted of a sex offense in Oregon. On the assumption that Oregon law provides he would be sampled and that sample placed in CODIS, the fact that the 'Rogue DNA' from the JBR corpse did not get a 'hit' in the CODIS databse would therefore mean that Gary Oliva and all others already in the database were not the individuals who contributed to the dna found on JBR.

However, people who have not been arrested or convicted, but merely voluntarily provided dna samples such as Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, Fleet White(?), McSanta, etc: these people would not be "in the CODIS database" at all. So "no hits" does not necessarily exclude McSanta or Fleet White.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Nor would it exclude a Ramsey.

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 02:04 PM
True, if the male DNA had matched to John or Burke, it would have been attempted by a defense at trial to dismiss it as some normal, innocent transference. But DNA in her panties mixed with her blood would certainly have been just cause to charge JR with her death--and no doubt would have resulted in just that action.

The panties were brand new out of the package, and not washed previous to JonBenét's wearing. Since JR had no claim of dressing JBR previous to her murder, and would have had no explanation for transfer of his DNA into her panties, a jury would have IMO convicted him.

I believe a jury will convict whoever that DNA belongs to for JBR's murder.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 02:07 PM
It's been a big assumption that the panties came out of a package, but we haven't known that to be a fact, have we?

Britt
01-22-2004, 02:10 PM
If it did match a Ramsey, there would have been no need to compare that DNA to the extended family of the Ramseys, to playmates, to other case characters, to Oliva, to Helgoth, or now, to the entire dna database of the FBI.
And how do we know which of the non-Ramseys, if any, the DNA-X was compared to, or if the DNA-X was submitted to the FBI database?

Toth
01-22-2004, 02:11 PM
The Oregon case appears to involve a Turkish man married to an American, but who had no job and seemed to be more 'hanging around' the University and the dormitory than enrolled there.
Often there are such 'hangers on' around college campuses. They work at menial jobs and take classes but may lack skills to obtain girl friends of their own age.
I'm not certain if such a hanger on might have been involved in the JBR case, but absent any later arrest/conviction his dna is not likely to be tested.

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 02:15 PM
Imon, the package of panties was recovered by Ramsey investigators after the house was turned back over by BPD to the family.

Lin Wood obtained the package and turned it over to the DA (I think it was 2003, but I might be off a year). There was at least one article, with quotes from Wood, about the package of panties.

BlueCrab
01-22-2004, 02:16 PM
:waitasec: How do you know the DNA-X doesn't match a Ramsey?


She can't know ; no one knows except the authorities who are sitting on this information. None of the DNA results have been made public. All we get are unsubstantiated leaks from those who have agendas to carry out, and an occasional crumb from the depositions.

Since the title of this thread is "Questions", I have this question:

Will the DNA samples from the JonBenet Ramsey crime scene be sent to DNAPrint Genomics, Inc., and be tested by that company using its "DNA Witness" technology to obtain the ancestral proportions of the person(s) who deposited the DNA?

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

why_nutt
01-22-2004, 02:28 PM
Imon, the package of panties was recovered by Ramsey investigators after the house was turned back over by BPD to the family.

Lin Wood obtained the package and turned it over to the DA (I think it was 2003, but I might be off a year). There was at least one article, with quotes from Wood, about the package of panties.

It is not probative of guilt or anything like it, but I find it an odd quirk of the Ramsey family priorities that they would give away their deceased daughter's bicycle, a precious item they gave her on the last day of her life and which she loved and wanted very much to enjoy had she lived, but they keep her underwear. No, not even her underwear. As intended, Polly's daughter's underwear, since JonBenet never wore the other pairs. What possible sentimental attachments can John and Patsy have to pairs of ill-fitting underwear their daughter never wore?

Britt
01-22-2004, 02:29 PM
I believe a jury will convict whoever that DNA belongs to for JBR's murder.
I disagree. I don't think most juries are that simpleminded. They would look at the totality of the evidence, especially after the DNA experts finished explaining DNA to them.

The DNA, whether it belonged to a Ramsey or someone else, would have to be linked to the crime. If the connection couldn't be shown, there would be huge reasonable doubt. If the DNA came from innocent transfer - say, picked up in a public bathroom - and the donor were ID'd, there would likely be much to contradict the DNA "evidence," like an alibi for instance. If the DNA came from a Ramsey, it could be explained away because the Ramseys all lived and visited in the house and interacted with JB... again, reasonable doubt as to the killer.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 02:38 PM
why-nutt, that's always bothered me...that the R's gave away JB's bike. Also, that they could so quickly walk away from the Boulder house, determined never to go back to the Hell Hole. I'd have wanted to be near anything close to JB, had it been my little girl (and I wish she had). I can understand if after having given it a shot, they'd have moved. But just like the quick decision (with no apparent discussion between J & P)where to bury JB, lots of things don't add up, IMO.

Shylock
01-22-2004, 02:59 PM
The Ramseys do not match the foreign DNA on JonBenét, nor the DNA-X, wherever it may have been found.
LP, you quoted Thomas before, but you ignored exactly what he said. The DNA may be from more than one source (in addition to JonBenet's own DNA). If that is the case, then nobody can be eliminated as being a donor, not even the Ramseys.

And even though the DNA has enough markers to submit to CODIS there is still no identifiable source for it. It could be nothing more than a mixed-mash of contamination.

Toth
01-22-2004, 03:08 PM
Discussion? Atlanta was there home; nothing much to discuss.
Stay in the home? Okay, what you are saying is that your reaction would be different, but surely you are aware that many react the same way as Patsy Ramsey and never set foot in the house again.

why_nutt
01-22-2004, 03:20 PM
LP, you quoted Thomas before, but you ignored exactly what he said. The DNA may be from more than one source (in addition to JonBenet's own DNA). If that is the case, then nobody can be eliminated as being a donor, not even the Ramseys.

And even though the DNA has enough markers to submit to CODIS there is still no identifiable source for it. It could be nothing more than a mixed-mash of contamination.

The CBI DNA summary says the same thing. IF the minor component of the samples analyzed comes from one person, then the Ramseys are eliminated, IF the minor component is made up of DNA contributions from more than one person, the Ramseys are not eliminated. The CBI report did not eliminate the Ramseys unilaterally, under all circumstances.

Look at a portion of the report again.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/cbi_closeup.gif

See the WB on the first line? That belongs to the unidentified DNA present in the underwear. To the left of that position, though, is an empty space where a foreign marker was missing. Look on the line below. There is a WB on the right, and another WB to its left. Look at the third line below. There is a WB to the right, to its left another WB, and to that one's left a WA. If the samples belong to two or more people, the first line's WB may, if it were filled in, have a WA to its left, in which case the first and second lines of DNA markers would identify two different people. You could have this potential array, using only what we can see:

WB WA WB (in the underwear)
WB WB WB (under JonBenet's left-hand nails)
WA WB WB (under JonBenet's right-hand nails)

If any or all of the Ramseys have a WB in that third position, they would not be eliminated, but only it could be completely ascertained as to what the contents of the missing positions are.

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 04:34 PM
Shylock and why_nutt, ST's assessment obviously does not apply to the male DNA specimen obtained from the 2nd spot of blood. The if's went out the window when the 2nd spot of blood was analyzed and a better DNA profile obtained.

I get the impression that some of you think the Ramseys' DNA sample results were never compared to the male DNA found on JonBenét. Or you think that it was compared, matched, but law enforcement has continued to compare it with characters like Oliva, Helgoth, and the CODIS data bank. I have to say that I don't find either way of thinking reasonable or supported by evidence.

Jayelles
01-22-2004, 05:14 PM
Shylock and why_nutt, ST's assessment obviously does not apply to the male DNA specimen obtained from the 2nd spot of blood. The if's went out the window when the 2nd spot of blood was analyzed and a better DNA profile obtained.

I get the impression that some of you think the Ramseys' DNA sample results were never compared to the male DNA found on JonBenét. Or you think that it was compared, matched, but law enforcement has continued to compare it with characters like Oliva, Helgoth, and the CODIS data bank. I have to say that I don't find either way of thinking reasonable or supported by evidence.

Regarding DNA-x. Nowhere has it been said that the ramseys didn't match it. Margoo/MIBRO also argued that it didn't match the Ramseys, but when backed into a corner, the only 'proof' she could offer was that they would have been arrested/charged if it had.

Playing Devil's Advocate ..... It IS possible that DNA-x does match a Ramsey but that because of where it was found, it may not be strong enough evidence on its own. For example, (and this is just an example off the top of my head - Toth, I am NOT earnestly touting this as my theory)... if it had been on the baseball bat handle... well, it's not certain the baseball bat is connected to the murder and so more evidence than that would be needed.

why_nutt
01-22-2004, 05:58 PM
Shylock and why_nutt, ST's assessment obviously does not apply to the male DNA specimen obtained from the 2nd spot of blood. The if's went out the window when the 2nd spot of blood was analyzed and a better DNA profile obtained.

No, I think the ifs are still present. The second specimen is not being described as matching or even overlapping with the third-line markers from JonBenet's right hand, as they are displayed on the report. So even in the event we have better markers appearing on JonBenet's underwear, a jury would still have to have explained to it why it should care about these markers on a piece of fabric given that they do not actually appear in the same form on JonBenet's body itself. You saw the Dirk Greineder trial, you know how that would work. There were three unidentified DNA samples on a glove belonging to his murdered wife, and the jury still convicted her husband, throwing away all defense explanation that the unidentified DNA may have belonged to her real murderer(s).

The major problem with the DNA is that the part of JonBenet's body which the underwear touched does not, itself, contain unidentified DNA. A jury will have trouble making sense of that. No amount of wiping with a cloth could effectively sterilize JonBenet's body surfaces in her genital area, and a jury knows this. So how does an intruder explanation arrive at DNA on her underwear, but not on her genitalia?

Imon128
01-22-2004, 06:22 PM
You never cease to amaze me, why_nutt!

Toth
01-22-2004, 06:32 PM
No amount of wiping with a cloth could effectively sterilize JonBenet's body surfaces in her genital area, and a jury knows this. So how does an intruder explanation arrive at DNA on her underwear, but not on her genitalia? I don't see any issue here. Whatever JonBenet did to the intruder such as scratching him is unknown, but perhaps caused him to foolishly put his hand to the scratch thus getting blood on his finger which he then used to pull down her panties, transferring the small amount of blood to the panties.
I think the wiping down may have been to remove his saliva and its possible he did that effectively.
or he may have wiped her down simply to remove any possible evidence even though he felt he had left none.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 06:39 PM
The autopsy shows no signs of JB scratching her assailant, or is there any proof of saliva, nor has it been shown she was wiped down. There was blood smeared on her leg, but that could have come about merely by pulling her longjohns back up, IMO.

Ivy
01-22-2004, 06:58 PM
Right, Imon. And the blood smear could also have come from the wiping cloth brushing her leg.

why_nutt
01-22-2004, 07:28 PM
I don't see any issue here. Whatever JonBenet did to the intruder such as scratching him is unknown, but perhaps caused him to foolishly put his hand to the scratch thus getting blood on his finger which he then used to pull down her panties, transferring the small amount of blood to the panties.

Look at your own words and consider their consequences. If JonBenet scratched an intruder, intact skin cells would have been trapped under her nails, and we would not be talking about degraded DNA there. If she scratched him deep enough to lacerate and draw blood, then we would not only find intact epidermal cells from the intruder, we would likely find intact dermal cells and possibly even a hair or two.

http://www.bmb.psu.edu/courses/bisci004a/tissues/skin.jpg

The magic in this potential scratch-transfer also assumes that somehow the intruder would put a finger on the inner crotch portion of JonBenet's panties, but manage to completely avoid the waistband or any other part of the fabric of her underwear.

Finally, look at your fingers. See the pads where your fingerprints are? If an intruder touched his own scratch, blood would be on the pads, not on the nail side of the finger. Now, if you want to propose that an intruder transferred blood from a scratch on himself to the crotch of JonBenet's underwear, you also have to propose that the intruder did not do what was natural, and slide his hand inside her underwear so that he turned the pads of his fingers towards her body; rather, he would have to turn the pads of his fingers away from her skin and body and towards the fabric of the underwear, causing the nail side of his fingers to touch her skin. You can see how absolutely no pleasure is to be derived from molesting JonBenet's underwear instead of her body.

popcorn
01-22-2004, 07:45 PM
"transferring the small amount of blood to the panties. "

I don't think you have any concept of how miniscule this droplet was. I believe it's less the size of even one human blood cell. If they tried to purposely deposit such a small amount it's likely they couldn't. The suggestion it wasn't even related to the crime, old, undatable, and more or less residue from a previous stain fits the accepted verbage, degraded.

BlueCrab
01-22-2004, 08:36 PM
The CBI DNA summary says the same thing. IF the minor component of the samples analyzed comes from one person, then the Ramseys are eliminated, IF the minor component is made up of DNA contributions from more than one person, the Ramseys are not eliminated. The CBI report did not eliminate the Ramseys unilaterally, under all circumstances.

Look at a portion of the report again.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/cbi_closeup.gif

See the WB on the first line? That belongs to the unidentified DNA present in the underwear. To the left of that position, though, is an empty space where a foreign marker was missing. Look on the line below. There is a WB on the right, and another WB to its left. Look at the third line below. There is a WB to the right, to its left another WB, and to that one's left a WA. If the samples belong to two or more people, the first line's WB may, if it were filled in, have a WA to its left, in which case the first and second lines of DNA markers would identify two different people. You could have this potential array, using only what we can see:

WB WA WB (in the underwear)
WB WB WB (under JonBenet's left-hand nails)
WA WB WB (under JonBenet's right-hand nails)

If any or all of the Ramseys have a WB in that third position, they would not be eliminated, but only it could be completely ascertained as to what the contents of the missing positions are.



Why_Nut,

Sorry, but that DNA image you show, apparently from the CBI's analysis of the Ramsey crime scene DNA, doesn't make any sense to me. It looks like gibberish and your written explanation doesn't follow what the image shows.

JMO

K777angel
01-22-2004, 08:46 PM
"transferring the small amount of blood to the panties. "

I don't think you have any concept of how miniscule this droplet was. I believe it's less the size of even one human blood cell. If they tried to purposely deposit such a small amount it's likely they couldn't. The suggestion it wasn't even related to the crime, old, undatable, and more or less residue from a previous stain fits the accepted verbage, degraded.

I was reading some very old published articles and transcripts of interviews on the case the other night and one really struck me. It talked about how the blood stain(s) in JonBenet's panties were NOT fresh stains - but old ones.
There have also been reports of brown stains on that white blanket of JonBenet's.
I do not recall where I read this or who stated it, but I do remember thinking how interesting it was because the person was credible who was stating it.
Whoever it was. Sorry.

popcorn
01-22-2004, 09:05 PM
Where is there an interview where Patsy is questioned about the panties? (nowhere) There is a quote from LHP that they were kept in a drawer in the bathroom, that's about it. It was alluded to that they were brand new, from Bloomingdales, size 12, but with no backtrackable source that's likley all spin. Look how it takes the heat off the Ramseys if you believe they were pristine brand new from an unopened package.

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 09:18 PM
Popcorn, it may be that you doesn't understand the size of the blood drops on JonBenét's panties. From the autopsy report:

The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.


A pencil's eraser is about 1/4 inch in diameter. A dime is about 3/4 inch in diameter. The spots of blood on the crotch of the panties measured up to 1/2 inch in diameter--hardly miniscule.

Edit to add: PR was asked about the panties in the Atlanta interviews in Lin Wood's office. If you have not read those transcripts, you probably should.

popcorn
01-22-2004, 09:36 PM
That's JonBenet's blood and her DNA, what's in question is the 'foreign' DNA.

popcorn
01-22-2004, 09:37 PM
The spin about the panties predates the Atlanta interviews.

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 09:46 PM
You asked if there was transcript of interview asking PR about the panties, while contending that there was not.

There is.

We do not know what the material is that held the male DNA (sweat, skin cell, saliva, blood) or the size of that material. We only know that it was mixed with the JonBenét's blood in those drops on her panty's interior crotch.

Ivy
01-22-2004, 10:00 PM
If someone has a link to the transcript in which Patsy talks about the size 12 panties, please post it, okay? I don't recall ever seeing it.

Anyway, if we're to believe the Star, the BPD ackowledged the size 12 panties story as being true. Here's an excerpt from an archived LongmontFYI article:

The same tabloid [The Star] claims JonBenet was wearing size-12 underwear when her body was found, in spite of the fact she normally wore a much-smaller size 6. The report said the little girl was wearing size-6 "day-of-the-week panties" labeled for Wednesday when she was put to bed. The unopened package of size-12 day-of-the-week panties was reportedly in a drawer and had been purchased to give to another child. The Star said police believe the larger panties could have been hastily opened by Patsy in order to make sure the "Wednesday" label was showing.

According to the Star, police said, "If a stranger had killed JonBenet, it would have been impossible for him to know where to find the panties."

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail99.asp?ID=46

LovelyPigeon
01-22-2004, 10:44 PM
I can't provide a link, but I can provide that portion of the transcript:
75
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?

Shylock
01-22-2004, 10:47 PM
I don't see any issue here. Whatever JonBenet did to the intruder such as scratching him is unknown, but perhaps caused him to foolishly put his hand to the scratch thus getting blood on his finger which he then used to pull down her panties, transferring the small amount of blood to the panties.

What are you talking about Toth? You know there was NO blood on JB except her own. Blood is easy to identify. Just like semen, it has other components in it which make it identifiable.

JonBenet didn't scratch ANYBODY, not even herself. There was nothing identifiable under her fingernails to indicate differently.

Imon128
01-22-2004, 11:01 PM
Also, we know of no skin under JB's nails, etc. If she scratched her attacker, it surely would have shown up in an autposy report. If there's an addendum to the autopsy we're not privvy to, it's not our fault, at this point. NOTHING indicates that JB struggled with her killer from the facts we have been presented, IMO.

popcorn
01-22-2004, 11:04 PM
Thanks for the transcript. Seems like the Ramsey attorneys didn't think that it was important or for some other reason (take a wild guess) didn't want her to answer, they fought it.

In any event verifiction from an unbiased source must be provided as the foreign DNA if the only thing stopping the DA from charging the Ramseys. I do not believe anything Patsy Ramsey spews.

"We do not know what the material is that held the male DNA (sweat, skin cell, saliva, blood) or the size of that material. We only know that it was mixed with the JonBenét's blood in those drops on her panty's interior crotch."

It takes only a cell or two to get a complete DNA profile so it's safe to assume the size is less than a cell, it's an incomplete cell be it blood, saliva, or skin.

Shylock
01-22-2004, 11:26 PM
We only know that it was mixed with the JonBenét's blood in those drops on her panty's interior crotch.
What we know is that it was MIXED in the lab during the DNA testing process. That's how the process works.
As far as what was in her panties, we don't know if the foreign DNA even exists or is just contamination. And we don't know if the contamination was MIXED with her blood, under it, next to it, or on top of it. We don't know if the contamination was in the panties before she ever put them on, or if it came from the buffoon Meyer's shoddy lab practices. We don't know any of these things because there is no identifiable source for the foreign DNA. We know the experts have said it might not even exist and just be a product of the testing procedure itself (stutter effect). And most importantly, the experts have said this is NOT a DNA case.

We can sleep soundly at night, knowing that nobody will EVER be caught and convicted by this DNA baloney, and the Ramseys will look just as guilty tomorrow as they have for the past 7-years.

There were only FOUR people in the house that night, and one of the surviving three did something to cause the death of the fourth. Any of the three could be good for it.

IMO/JMO

Ivy
01-22-2004, 11:31 PM
Yes, thanks very much, LovelyPigeon.



Lin Wood said...
"I mean, I have got an 11-year-old boy, and he wears underwear that
potentially hangs down to his knees, Bruce."

Okay, I know this is OT, but I can't help but wonder...why did Lin Wood's son's underwear potentially (potentially? :waitasec: ) hang down to his knees?

Imon128
01-22-2004, 11:39 PM
Yes, thanks very much, LovelyPigeon.




Okay, I know this is OT, but I can't help but wonder...why did Lin Wood's son's underwear potentially (potentially? :waitasec: ) hang down to his knees?


Ivy, LOL. Perhaps they were attached to the horse whisper's horse's feedbag?

LovelyPigeon
01-23-2004, 01:02 AM
Wait! there's more than wouldn't fit in a single post:

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

85
1 A. Not specifically.
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.

Barbara
01-23-2004, 08:40 AM
One of these days, and depending on what type of psych class I'm asked to instruct, (every now and then I teach a class in the community college) if it fits with the curriculum, I am going to get all the transcripts available that have Patsy answering questions and I will make a project out of counting the number of questions asked of Patsy and the number of responses that are:

maybe,
not specifically
I'm not sure
I don't recall
it's possible, but..
I can't say for sure
I don't really remember
I think so, but....
Perhaps, but

etc., etc.

I would do it myself but just don't have the time.

Why is it that there are some who would ask us to believe the accounts of that night by not only one of the prime candidates for perp, but of someone who cannot seem to answer a single important question definitively?

This is her own mother for crying out loud and she couldn't even remember the last time her 5 year old daughter bathed or washed her hands in some interviews.

Hello? Hello? Hello?

Is it just me???

This is the person whose word some will take as the gospel truth about this case? Why?

Nehemiah
01-23-2004, 09:03 AM
I was reading some very old published articles and transcripts of interviews on the case the other night and one really struck me. It talked about how the blood stain(s) in JonBenet's panties were NOT fresh stains - but old ones.
There have also been reports of brown stains on that white blanket of JonBenet's.
I do not recall where I read this or who stated it, but I do remember thinking how interesting it was because the person was credible who was stating it.
Whoever it was. Sorry.

http://www.thewebsafe.tripod.com/05...rdongeraldo.htm

Geraldo Rivera - Wednesday, May 14, 1997


CNBC News Transcripts, May 14, 1997

SHOW: RIVERA LIVE (9:00 PM ET)

May 14, 1997, Wednesday 4:29 PM


....Ms. McKINLEY: They had three things: They had a hair on a blanket, they had some fingernail cuttings with perhaps some DNA under the cuttings from JonBenet and they had a pair of her underwear that might have had bloodstains on it. But the bloodstains, my sources tell me, had been washed over and over again in the laundry and they might not have been able to get any DNA from those stains. So it might have been old.

RIVERA: The child's underwear had bloodstains.

Ms. McKINLEY: From what my sources say, yes. I have two very good sources who've told me that. But they might not have gotten anything from the DNA because it might have been an old bloodstain....

Jayelles
01-23-2004, 09:42 AM
But what we were led to believe about the DNA from the BPD turns out not to be accurate. There is sufficient DNA of sufficient quality to submit the sample to CODIS.

I don't think a jury would believe that some innocent transfer caused a man's DNA to be mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties.

I believe that they would still have to build a case against such a suspect. If they have 10 markers only - couldn't that also implcate his relatives?

Supposing the guy has an alibi? Supposing he suffers from severe dyslexia? Supposing he is a pillar of the community who's never even had a parking ticket? It certainly already seems as though he may have no previous convictions - no "history" as his DNA is not in CODIS.

Supposing the guy turn out to have dined at Pasta Jay's on Christmas Eve. Supposing he visited the loo whilst he was there, and that he can prove he had troublesome haemorrhoids which bled - leaving a trace of his DNA on the toilet seat? That could be all it could take for a defence.

Try putting yourself in his shoes. Supposing the police arrive on your doorstep saying that 10 markers of your husband/son/father's DNA matches that found in the underwear of a murder victim. You recall that you dined at the same restaurant as the murder victim on the night before she died and your husband/father/son/brother has bleeding haemorrhoids. Would you consider that as a possible explanation ... or would you instantly assume that your male relative was a murderer?

LovelyPigeon
01-23-2004, 01:39 PM
Barbara, it's just you :-P

This transcript is an interview more than 2 years after JonBenét's death.

Not only has Patsy been told to answer *as best she can* but she's encouraged not to make definite statements if she actually doesn't remember.

Try an experiment sometime--maybe in a psych class you teach---and see what people can actually remember about actual daily, mundane events. You've probably seen some televised experiments on TLC or Discovery you could model after.

LovelyPigeon
01-23-2004, 01:45 PM
Jayelle, people with alibis get convicted all the time. Now, if you have a match to the DNA who can prove he was in Washington State or Washington DC at the time, you'd have a winner.

DNA in the underwear or on the body of a sexually assaulted and murdered person is powerful evidence against the person who owns that DNA. It happens more and more as DNA is used as physical evidence in cases of rape, murder, assault, etc

It would take some powerful, logical, and physical explanations to convince the parents, law enforcement, a judge, and a jury that the owner of that DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties was not her killer.

Imon128
01-23-2004, 01:45 PM
What is the source for the Atlanta transcripts you posted, LP? Thanks.

Toth
01-23-2004, 01:46 PM
The bloodstains were fresh and the panties had never been laundered.

Toth
01-23-2004, 01:48 PM
It doesn't matter how much of a pillar of the community he is and how lacking he is in any known pathology or history of criminal behavior. If its a match to his dna, he is "good for it" and far, far better for it than anyone else.

Imon128
01-23-2004, 01:48 PM
The bloodstains were fresh and the panties had never been laundered.


Has that been documented in a book, or some other source that can be sued, should it be wrong?

I've never read either of those things you just stated to be fact or discovery until you posted it.

tipper
01-23-2004, 01:52 PM
Try an experiment sometime--maybe in a psych class you teach---and see what people can actually remember about actual daily, mundane events. You've probably seen some televised experiments on TLC or Discovery you could model after.
That would be interesting. And before they start answering the questions tell them there will be negative repercussions if they answer something imcorrectly. So they are to say they don't know or don't recall for anything they don't have a clear, positive, and distinct memory of.

Ivy
01-23-2004, 01:53 PM
On the other hand, LP, it would take some powerful arguments to convince a jury that JonBenet's molester/killer left only a teensy bit of DNA.

Barbara
01-23-2004, 01:54 PM
Barbara, it's just you :-P

This transcript is an interview more than 2 years after JonBenét's death.

Not only has Patsy been told to answer *as best she can* but she's encouraged not to make definite statements if she actually doesn't remember.

Try an experiment sometime--maybe in a psych class you teach---and see what people can actually remember about actual daily, mundane events. You've probably seen some televised experiments on TLC or Discovery you could model after.

Hi LP

LOL, so it is just me eh? Somehow that surprises me.

As far as the memory experiment, you can't go by ordinary mundane events. JBR's murder is no mundane event. Granted, I couldn't tell you what I did a week ago in detail, let alone 2 years ago. BUT...I can tell you every detail about what happened the day my father died, the day my daughter was born, the day I got married, and especially the details on the day my divorce papers came through :)

Shylock
01-23-2004, 02:03 PM
PATSY: "I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on."
KANE: "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."
KANE: "Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay?"


So where are the rest of the size 12 Bloomi panties? Patsy says they were in JonBenet's drawer-that she put them there herself. Kane says all the panties taken from that drawer by the police were size 4 or size 6.

tipper
01-23-2004, 02:11 PM
Hi LP

LOL, so it is just me eh? Somehow that surprises me.

As far as the memory experiment, you can't go by ordinary mundane events. JBR's murder is no mundane event. Granted, I couldn't tell you what I did a week ago in detail, let alone 2 years ago. BUT...I can tell you every detail about what happened the day my father died, the day my daughter was born, the day I got married, and especially the details on the day my divorce papers came through :)
But how often do you get grilled and challenged on your recollection of those events?

Wouldn't happen in a non-mundane event?
From Crimelibrary:

An enterprising newspaperman had been tipped off that there was a kidnapping involving the Franks' boy. He had also heard that a boy had been found dead in a culvert near Wolf Lake, a probable drowning victim. He relayed the description of the dead boy to Mr. Franks, who did not think it matched his son. Franks' brother-in-law went check it out.

When the telephone rang, "George Johnson" told Ettelson, "I am sending a Yellow Cab for you. Get in and go to the drugstore at 1465 East Sixty-third Street." Ettelson handed the phone to Jacob and the message was repeated. In the trauma of the events, both men immediately forgot the address of the drugstore.

Imon128
01-23-2004, 02:13 PM
However, Patsy not only remembered her addy in her 911 call, she gave it. Was she as distraught as she and John had tried to purport? Doubt it.

popcorn
01-23-2004, 02:17 PM
I tried to do an underwear count on another thread and now that's totally screwed up- doesn't it seem all the panties removed in the search were JonBenet's even though they are given different vernacular and taken by different detectives, as if they weren't all kept in the same little old bathroom drawer.

Toth
01-23-2004, 03:15 PM
A teensy bit is all it takes.

Toth
01-23-2004, 03:21 PM
maybe,
not specifically
I'm not sure
I don't recall
it's possible, but..
I can't say for sure
I don't really remember
I think so, but....
Perhaps, but And if you are ever deposed, your transcript will have the same phrases in it.

Jayelles
01-23-2004, 03:57 PM
That would be interesting. And before they start answering the questions tell them there will be negative repercussions if they answer something imcorrectly. So they are to say they don't know or don't recall for anything they don't have a clear, positive, and distinct memory of.

Also tell them that the more they do remember, the more likely it will be that you will nail the perp who terrorised, brutalised and killed a beautiful, innocent 6 year old child.

Barbara
01-23-2004, 03:59 PM
And if you are ever deposed, your transcript will have the same phrases in it.

lol Toth, nothing in my life is that exciting any more to require a deposition. As far as those phrases, well with menopause beginning, and turning 50, I use those phrases at least three times a day now. :crazy:

Jayelles
01-23-2004, 04:00 PM
DNA in the underwear or on the body of a sexually assaulted and murdered person is powerful evidence against the person who owns that DNA. It happens more and more as DNA is used as physical evidence in cases of rape, murder, assault, etc

It would take some powerful, logical, and physical explanations to convince the parents, law enforcement, a judge, and a jury that the owner of that DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties was not her killer.

I would be more convinced of this if the DNA under her nails and in her underwear was fresh.

That's a bugaboo for me.

Nedthan Johns
01-23-2004, 04:01 PM
I caught something interesting regarding the panties. First of all who is Jenny? The person Patsy claims to have bought the panties for in the first place?

Was the package the panties were taken from ever found? It sounds like to me that only ONE pair of size 12 panties were taken. Is it just me or is it ODD for someone else's parents to be buying another little girls underwear? I cannot recall ever receiving underwear for our daughter as a Christmas gift from any of my brothers or sister in laws.

Is Jenny even a realitive? I know Thomas mentions a package of oversized panties in his book, but I no longer have the book. To me the oversized panties suggest they were bought for an entirely different reason. To go over the diapers Pasty used for JonBenet when she wet the bed. By denying that the panties were used for that purpose indicates Patsy was lying about the bed wetting.

Jayelles
01-23-2004, 05:27 PM
I think the point is that these particular knickers were "Bloomies" which have a certain degree of novelty value. So that said, I don't think it was a case of Patsy buying underwear for her niece as Patsy buying Bloomies for her niece. There is a 'subtle' difference.

Toth
01-23-2004, 06:10 PM
What makes you think it was "not fresh"?
What exactly do you mean by 'fresh'?
If a stain were a week old would it be fresh? OR stale?
What about twelve hours old?
What about twenty-four hours old?

Jayelles
01-23-2004, 06:39 PM
What makes you think it was "not fresh"?
What exactly do you mean by 'fresh'?
If a stain were a week old would it be fresh? OR stale?
What about twelve hours old?
What about twenty-four hours old?

We seem to be going round and around in circles here.

Remind me of a man
(what man?)
A man with power
(what power?)
The power of Voodoo
(Who doo?)
You do
(Do what?)
Remind me of a man
(What man)
....

By not fresh - I mean that the foreign DNA degraded to less than 10 markers whereas JonBenet's DNA - which we know to have been deposited withing the previous 24 hours, was complete.

THAT is the problem that so many of us (including experts in DNA) have in believing that the DNA definitely came from her killer and WHY it is important to consider the fact that it may not have come from her killer.

Let's look at it another way.

A farmer has two hens which lay one egg a day. The white hen lays white eggs and the red hen lays brown eggs. One day, the red hen goes missing. A few days after that, the farmer find a white egg and a brown egg in the barn. The white egg is fresh, but the brown egg is starting to go off. Should the farmer still assume that his beloved brown hen came back in the night and laid him a degraded brown egg? Since the eggs are together, does that mean they were laid at the same time?

What does logic say about the DNA. Why should her killer's DNA degrade within 12 hours when her own does not?

If she scratched her killer, why has the DNA from the skin cells degraded after only 12 hours when it can survive for much

According to this article, most DNA degrades within 72 hours of death, but it can survive for decades and even centuries.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/12/25/dna_may_aid_hunt_for_roots/

So... to answer your question, with some questions....
Would a week old egg which had been kept in the cool be fresh or stale?
Would a two day old egg which had been lying in the sun be fresh or stale?
If you've got two samples of DNA and one is intact and the other is cracked and degraded - which is fresh and which is stale?

Shylock
01-23-2004, 08:32 PM
Would a week old egg which had been kept in the cool be fresh or stale?
Would a two day old egg which had been lying in the sun be fresh or stale?
If you've got two samples of DNA and one is intact and the other is cracked and degraded - which is fresh and which is stale?

Who cares. The only thing we need to know is: If you leave sour cream out, does it go good?

popcorn
01-24-2004, 05:58 AM
PATSY: "I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on."
KANE: "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."
KANE: "Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay?"


So where are the rest of the size 12 Bloomi panties? Patsy says they were in JonBenet's drawer-that she put them there herself. Kane says all the panties taken from that drawer by the police were size 4 or size 6.

So it's possible there wasn't even a brand new package in the first place. Just a single pair as in maybe she borrowed them at a pageant if Jonbenet had an accident.

There weren't other days of the week in a size 12, that's quite a profound revelation.

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 12:46 PM
No, it's not possible that it's an old pair. The package was recovered by Ramsey investigators after the house was turned back over to the Ramseys by BPD. The Ramseys never went back into the house, but private investigators did.

Lin Wood turned the package over to the Boulder DA last year (or was it 2002?).

If the panties were previously worn and washed there would never have been this silly suggestion that some male worker in the Asian manufactoring plant left his DNA via a sneeze over the panty fabric.

Edit to add that the BPD collected used underwear from the house in case there was incriminating evidence on any of it.

SisterSocks
01-24-2004, 01:10 PM
However, Patsy not only remembered her addy in her 911 call, she gave it. Was she as distraught as she and John had tried to purport? Doubt it.


You mean to tell me--- you think Pats would have presence of mind to dial 911 and not remember her addy? :rolleyes: This I doubt...

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 01:14 PM
I'm much more inclined to remember my address (although I can't always recall my cell phone number and have to ask my son for the number) than if a 911 operator were to ask me the last time my child bathed or when I washed her hair or what underwear she was wearing.

I would also consider the address MUCH more important to remember.

Jayelles
01-24-2004, 01:33 PM
Three years ago, my husband had an accident when a quad bike overturned and landed on top of him. My son came screaming up to the house telling me to call an ambulance quick and I did this automatically. When the operator asked me, I simply could not remember the address and had to be prompted by others. The operator kept telling me to calm down.

I found out afterwards that this was more common than you would imagine - people in shock can forget their addresses and sometimes even their names.

As a result of my own experience in an emergency, I now have a little note beside each phone which has the telephone number and house address on it. Just in case.

Imon128
01-24-2004, 01:38 PM
If I recall correctly, in the NE Police Files book with the police transcripts, Patsy's interviewer calls her out on the 'address' info as she volunteered it. I'll go look for that in my book. Seems Patsy was so distraught, she was on the floor, totally out of it, so to speak, yet had the wherewithal to volunteer that info in her 911 call. I'll post the words from the book when I locate it. I think what's odd about it is that Patsy was supposedly out of it, so to speak, generally at that time and continued throught the morn, yet was relatively calm at that point. I'll post it when I find it.

Jayelles
01-24-2004, 01:46 PM
You are right - he did comment on the fact that it was unusual for people to volunteer the address. COuld you find that please?

SisterSocks
01-24-2004, 01:47 PM
Three years ago, my husband had an accident when a quad bike overturned and landed on top of him. My son came screaming up to the house telling me to call an ambulance quick and I did this automatically. When the operator asked me, I simply could not remember the address and had to be prompted by others. The operator kept telling me to calm down.

I found out afterwards that this was more common than you would imagine - people in shock can forget their addresses and sometimes even their names.

As a result of my own experience in an emergency, I now have a little note beside each phone which has the telephone number and house address on it. Just in case.


Hi Jayelles,

Wow---- hope hubby wasn't hurt to bad.

I guess its just the difference in people.

In my end of the woods I wouldn't automatically Call 911 without the info of what was going on. Unless I had my cell phone ---then I would have ran and seen what was going on ,as I dialed....

I just can't imagine Patsy not remembering her Addy --If indeed she had presence of mind to dial 911. Ya know just difference in People and opinions.

Maxi
01-24-2004, 02:05 PM
Whenever I've had to call an emergency number, I've given my address first even tho the operator usually asks, "What is your emergency". For some reason -- maybe a hangover from the old days -- I respond with my location. I know perfectly well that, unless I'm on a cell phone, the operator has my address faster than I can give it to her.

Imon128
01-24-2004, 02:22 PM
From the Police Files NE book, Patsy has made it quite clear she's in a terrible state. I'd have to post several different pages to get that point across, but I think most who've read up on this case in various books, know that Patsy was supposedly a basket case, even on the floor when the cops arrived. Throwing up, etc., and her words in my aforementioned book, verify what is said to be her state. This is from the NE Police Files book, pp. 154-155:

"PR: I was nuts, he--I mean, shaking, but he was tring to--

TH: You say you were nuts?

PR: Yeah.

TH: Are you still screaming, yelling, crying?

PR: Yeah, I mean I was just in shock. You know, you know, just how did they get in, who did this, my God, what are we going to do?

TH: Now. the phone that's there, that's a fixed phone?

PR: (Nodding)

TH: Now, I have to stop you here because at my house if there is an emergency, if there is a problem and my wife is screaming and yelling and panicked, I wouldn't have her call anybody. Because they would never figure out what she is saying. And it sounds like you're in kind of an emotional state and John, he is down there, he is processing this note and he tells you to call 911?

PR: uh huh.

TH: It just seems kind of odd to me. What--

PR: I don't know whether it's odd or not, but that's what happened.

TH: Okay.

PR: I mean, you know, I had it together enough to call. And I said, 'This is Patsy Ramsey at 755 15th Street' or whatever...I think she was trying to make sure I got it out, you know.

TH: In fact, YOU GOT IT OUT PRETTY GOOD, YOU GOT OUT THE ADDRESS WHICH A LOT OF CALLERS WHO CALL THE POLICE, WHO CALL 911--

PR: --CAN'T REMEMBER THEIR NAMES.

TH: WELL, THEY DON'T GIVE THE ADDRESS. YOU SEEMED TO GIVE THE ADDRESS PRETTY QUICK. WHEN YOU CALLED, DID YOU PRACTICE THIS, DID YOU REHEARSE, DID YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY? (Caps mine)

popcorn
01-24-2004, 02:24 PM
Pasty states she opened a package of 12's and dumped them in the drawer. So who is it that came and folded them up and reinserted them into a package? The underwear fairy? Kane states there were no size 12's in that drawer period, it's quite clear the drawer's contents were emptied and seized in their entirety. It's possible there never was a package and whatever the Ramsey investigtors came up with is evidence fabricated to keep the Rameys out of jail, as was their objective, nothing about finding a killer.

Jayelles
01-24-2004, 02:31 PM
Hi Jayelles,

Wow---- hope hubby wasn't hurt to bad.

I guess its just the difference in people.

In my end of the woods I wouldn't automatically Call 911 without the info of what was going on. Unless I had my cell phone ---then I would have ran and seen what was going on ,as I dialed....

I just can't imagine Patsy not remembering her Addy --If indeed she had presence of mind to dial 911. Ya know just difference in People and opinions.


In the end, we didn't even get an ambulance because we were living in such a rural area that it was going to be quicker to take him to hospital than it would be to wait for an ambulance. We had to take a decision about moving him. His colour was dreadful and his breathing very shallow and he kept slipping in and out of consciousness. I was convinced he had pierced his lungs or something. Airways takes first priority. So, we got the seat down in the station wagon and lifted him in carefully. Then we rushed to hospital (a 40 minute drive on single track roads). I had to talk to him the whole way. Tootise threw up all over the place, it was horrendous! What was worse was that when we got to the hospital, there was nobody there! I ran around the hospital looking for someone to come and help. I ended up in the kitchens where they were having their tea and a nurse came running then and alerted others. It is a tiny cottage hospital with about 4 wards, however, they do have an operating theatre and an emergency surgeon.

He spent a few days in hospital but he was OK. He was just very badly bruised and winded and shocked. He'd been on the beach and the shingle had saved him from serious injury. I won't let him go on a quad bike ever again!

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 06:51 PM
Popcorn you are inaccurate in what you claim PR said in the interview. Here is what she said about the package:

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.

If there is transcript to support your claim that PR said she opened the package, dumped them out, etc, please post it.

Edit to add that Kane was not there to see what was in the drawer or what was taken from it. Kane was also under no legal obligation to either tell the truth or be accurate in his questioning & statements.

Look at the inventory listing the panties and who collected which pairs on what days and see for yourself.

Shylock
01-24-2004, 07:00 PM
No, it's not possible that it's an old pair. The package was recovered by Ramsey investigators after the house was turned back over to the Ramseys by BPD. The Ramseys never went back into the house, but private investigators did.

Lin Wood turned the package over to the Boulder DA last year (or was it 2002?).

If the panties were previously worn and washed there would never have been this silly suggestion that some male worker in the Asian manufactoring plant left his DNA via a sneeze over the panty fabric.

Edit to add that the BPD collected used underwear from the house in case there was incriminating evidence on any of it.

LP, I believe you're correct, that the panties were never worn before. But how do you explain the package being missing from where Patsy says she put them (and JB took them from)? If they were in the drawer as Pats claimed it wouldn't have been necessary for the Ramsey investigators to turn them over to the BPD, they would have had them along with the 15 other pairs.

popcorn
01-24-2004, 07:26 PM
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.

Patsy admitts here in to deciding, that is partcipating, in the opening of the package. She trips herself up because she never remembers JonBenet wearing the 12's or laundrying them but then how does she know the package had been opened unless she was in on it?

LovelyPigeon
01-24-2004, 07:34 PM
No, no, no. Patsy says the package had been opened, not that she opened it. She says elsewhere that the package was opened by JonBenét. No where does she say that she or anyone else *dumped the panties into the drawer*.

Patsy's attitude seemed to be *oh, well, the package is opened, go ahead and wear them* No big deal.

Shylock
01-24-2004, 08:03 PM
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,
Are these southern hillbilly women in the habit of buying underwear for other people's kids? I think that's pretty rude and I would wonder what the motive was if someone gave my child underwear. Sorta like giving someone mouthwash or deodorant for a present.
And you mean to tell me that in the entire store Patsy couldn't find a nicer gift to buy the girl other than panties?

Toltec
01-24-2004, 08:41 PM
Are these southern hillbilly women in the habit of buying underwear for other people's kids? I think that's pretty rude and I would wonder what the motive was if someone gave my child underwear. Sorta like giving someone mouthwash or deodorant for a present.
And you mean to tell me that in the entire store Patsy couldn't find a nicer gift to buy the girl other than panties?

I'm no hillbilly Shylock but I too buy underwear for my nieces only if they are especially pretty or they have a cartoon character that my nieces like. Women are that way, at least I am. I do not believe that Patsy intended to give her niece underwear as a birthday or christmas present.

popcorn
01-25-2004, 06:18 AM
"If the panties were previously worn and washed there would never have been this silly suggestion that some male worker in the Asian manufactoring plant left his DNA via a sneeze over the panty fabric."

You are mistaken as biolgical deposits leave a protein stain that remains through repeated washings. That is a viable option for why the foreign DNA is degraded, it was subject to detergent.

you go on to say

"Edit to add that the BPD collected used underwear from the house in case there was incriminating evidence on any of it."

which proves this fact.

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 07:12 AM
Lovely Piegon: If the panties were previously worn and washed there would never have been this silly suggestion that some male worker in the Asian manufactoring plant left his DNA via a sneeze over the panty fabric.

Ned: I wonder why you state the suggestion that some male worker in Asia left his DNA is silly yet it's not silly that some intruder did?

The degraded state of the DNA suggests to any trained Scientist, like myself, that it had been their sometime, you further confirm this belief by confirming that the underpants were NEW and still packaged. Therefore it is QUITE possible that DNA from anyone handling the underpants prior to them being placed on JB could have left traces of their DNA, including an Asian factory worker. More so, since they would have handled the underpants directly.
Less likely for FRESHLY deposited DNA to degrade in a household of controled enviornment in such sort time under circumstances where the body was never removed from the house. Further and intensive study regarding the DNA in this case, and confirmation of controled samples conducted by the investigators further confirm the possibility that in fact a male factor worker could have very well been the source of the DNA. It's much more plausable than the intruder as the source.

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 07:53 AM
LP: My theory is that the DNA isn't degraded.

The testing of the 2nd spot of blood apparently was able to recover at least 10 markers of DNA sufficient to submit to CODIS.

Ned: Any DNA that doesn't yeild complete set of markers LP is degraded. You don't drip blood and only drip part of your DNA. It doesn't work that way. As Blood, saliva, flakes of skin, semen are deposited, it's time and the elements that start to brake down the strands of DNA. Over time they become degraded, break down and eventually fade away altogether. That's why after years sometimes you can still lift DNA off licked stamps and cigarette butts and sometimes you can't. DNA was certainly deposited there, but it just depends on the elements that it was exposed to which determine the rate it degrades. The DNA in this case was not freshly deposited. Couldn't have been. There is much made about this DNA, and my guess is that an inexperienced police department and DA's office like that of yahoo Boulder, Colorado who are about 10 years behind the rest of civilization, are too stupid to know that an experienced Forensic Scientist could explain this in a court of law, or perhaps they think that Boulder citizens are too behind the times to even comprehend the basic understanding of DNA.

Toth
01-25-2004, 07:53 AM
bacteria such as from the urinary tract will attack the dna in a blood stain from the intruder's having instinctively touched a scratch that JonBenet inflicted on her attacker. The unfortunate delay in discovery of the corpse caused by the BPD's utter incompetence is the reason for any 'degraded' state. I suspect the second blood spot was higher up in the panties and not saturated with urine and therefore remained relatively free of bacteria.

Note: There has been references to 'wiped down' does anyone know if a product such as HandiWipes contains agents that would attack dna?

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 08:10 AM
LP: I don't think a jury would believe that some innocent transfer caused a man's DNA to be mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties

Ned: This is another misconception, that because the blood is mixed with JonBenets this somehow indicates to people that it had to be fresh. Not so, let me explain a little how this works. When DNA testing is conducted on a sample, the sample is cut from the underpants. The sample is then lifted off the cloth using a solution which then lossens the blood that is then extracted from the cloth. To the naked eye, all one could be able to determine is that there is what appears to be blood. There would be no way to know if it was from one or more sources. But once removed through the wash used to extract the blood, any other source of DNA, say even a pin prick of dried old blood, perhaps even not noticable to the naked eye, now becomes loosened, which mixes with the fresh deposited blood of JonBenet Ramsey. Need not have anything to do with the crime, and much more likely got there long before it. Coincidence that it was deposited in the same place JB bleed? Depends on the sample of how much of the cloth they tested. Fact is, once the sample is taken it's almost impossible to determine WHEN the foreign DNA got there. I think a better determination of how the blood could have gotten there is to do more investigation on how the actual panites are produced and just how much they are handled before they are packaged.
http://www.epicentre.com/pdftechlit/105pl102.pdf

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:01 AM
Jay: What does logic say about the DNA. Why should her killer's DNA degrade within 12 hours when her own does not?

NEd: Good girl and well said.

Here is what we know about the panties folks. And here is where the intruder theory goes right out the window.

First of all my daughter is too old now, but has anyone here tried on a pair of size 12 panties on a 6 year old? JB appears to be an awfully tiny 6 year old. My bet is that they would fall around her ankles and I think someone should find that out. Secondly by Patsy's own admission, she did NOT dress JB in those oversized panties that day, also admits JB never wet the bed that night, rulling out that they were somehow changed into after wetting the bed, and considering JB's age and having to go to a Christmas party, Patsy most likely helped her get dressed. Patsy also admits, she BOUGHT the panties, therefore eliminating any chance that some intruder brought them in. Patsy also admits she never opened the package. The panties were ON JB at the time of her death, NOT placed on her after. Note the autopsy report: The underpants were stained with urine and drops of blood. Possible that blood could have leaked out after death, but the bladder automatically empties at the time of death, which indicates someone did not re-dress her after death, but re-dressed her after she arrived home from the Whites, which makes the Ramsey's liars. It's too bad no tests were run or conducted (still probably could be) on the amount of urine it took to stain the long johns and underwear JB was found in. The way it's described in the autopsy leads me to believe in the time frame noted, arriving home at 9:30 and dead before midnight, the fact that Burke claimes she was awake and walked into the home carring presents, indicate to me that JB did not wet the bed that night, and the urine stained underpants and long johns was a result from the bladder releasing at the time of death, indicitive of being strangled from the back in a semi upright position, since the stains are to the front and theigh area. So this indicates that 1.) the pants were to big to be worn by JB, 2) Patsy stated she didn't dress her in them that day, 3) That the Ramsey's claim JB was asleep when they arrived home one can ONLY come to the conclusion in order to make the intruder theory fly that the intruder BEFORE murdering JonBenet HAD to have re-dressed her in the oversized panties. For what reason and how did he know where to find her panties, or why would he go to the trouble of opening up a fresh pack? What joy did the intruder get in redressing JB in oversized panties? How does this possibly make sense?

The oversized panties like the pineapple, was a terrible oversight by Patsy, by admitting she had nothing to do with either one, implicates her completely.

The noted disturbed pullups from the cubboard and oversized underpants indicate to me that they were purchased for the reason to be worn OVER the pullups, and that either JB was asked to get dressed for bed that night and put them on without the pullups or that during the time of getting dressed for bed is when the altercation took place. Again it would be very interesting to see the stains to the long johns and underpants. I don't know if JB could have been wearing the pullups all along, does anyone know how much they can hold before leaking onto pj's?

I would love to hear LP's explaination of how the oversized panties got on JB. Perhaps this was done while the intruder fed her pineapple?

Nehemiah
01-25-2004, 09:06 AM
Wow, Ned. Have you been up....like all night? LOL

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:07 AM
...wait the blood drops were found on the panties too, so unless the pullups leaked and then were removed and the blood somehow leaked out, perhaps from the body being moved into the windowless room, that could work, otherwise she wasn't wearing pullups at all.

Anyone have a 6 year old?

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:16 AM
You know what this crime needs? It needs a group of us to get together with the evidence as we know it and re-create the crime scene. Each and every step of it, or course not hurting a child, but using controlled experiements. There is a human farm somewhere in the east. I have always wondered why or if they have performed tests on the bodies of children there, which I would assume they may have with golf clubs, baseball bats, and flashlights, or on models of skulls with the same densitiy. A child the height and weight as Burke, and let him go at it. Same for a woman. I would also like to see studies done on the amount of urine deposited on the long johns and underpants, to see if it is even possible for a child to wet her bed and then in less than 2 hours have her bladder full enough to re-wet herself at the time of death.
I would like to see if size 12 panties fit on a 6 year old, or fit on top of pull ups. I would like to know if a full bladder in a child of 6 would wet through pullups. There are keys to this case, and I believe the underwear is now one of them along with the pineapple that so conclusively point to Patsy Ramsey as the murderer of this child, that I think, just think that continuing to rule out what is fact, and what isn't we are getting closer to knowing only what can be.

Nehemiah
01-25-2004, 09:17 AM
Are these southern hillbilly women in the habit of buying underwear for other people's kids?

Gee, Shylock, that's a pretty rude comment to make! :croc:

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:17 AM
Hey Nehemia, yep, had a brain spurt. Damn good one if you ask me, LOL


I like my underpants conclusion, what do you think? LOL I got here at 1am and it's now 5:30 almost, damn this thing is addictive.

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:19 AM
Ya know there are some things in life you can't put down, this is one of them, it's like a book with no ending..... I just hate it. That is what this case needs, imagine what we could do if we were privy to ALL the information... which ironically we might already have, considering all the leaks.

Nehemiah
01-25-2004, 09:21 AM
Hey Nehemia, yep, had a brain spurt. Damn good one if you ask me, LOL


I like my underpants conclusion, what do you think? LOL I got here at 1am and it's now 5:30 almost, damn this thing is addictive.

Yep, you're on a roll! Good ideas. I'm not sure if pull ups spill over, though. It's been a long time since I've dealt with such, and I have never known a six year old who wore pull ups.

I'm thinking we should all get together on a cruise ship. Have a "case cruise". What do you think?

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:26 AM
Toth: bacteria such as from the urinary tract will attack the dna in a blood stain from the intruder's having instinctively touched a scratch that JonBenet inflicted on her attacker. The unfortunate delay in discovery of the corpse caused by the BPD's utter incompetence is the reason for any 'degraded' state. I suspect the second blood spot was higher up in the panties and not saturated with urine and therefore remained relatively free of bacteria.

Ned: I see so one blood stain you claim (the urine free one, contained JB's undegraded blood, but that of the attacker fell victim to the urine bacteria? How does that explain the degraded DNA under JB's nails?

Note: There has been references to 'wiped down' does anyone know if a product such as HandiWipes contains agents that would attack dna?

Ned: I will contact a well kknown prominant Scientist I know that can answer both of these questions. Bleach is a well known agent that can break down DNA, I am not certain what effect urine would have on it or whatever components are in handiwipes.

Nedthan Johns
01-25-2004, 09:28 AM
A cruise sounds good,...... but that's what my wife is going to send me on ALONE if I don't get my arse in bed. Good night Nei, I mean good morning. Ah heck, it's Sunday, I get to sleep in!

See you all later

Charlie
01-25-2004, 09:43 AM
Can someone please give me a source that clearly states that the dna found in the panties is not "Ramsey DNA"

Toth, hopefully you can provide me with that since you stated that earlier in this thread.

Toth
01-25-2004, 11:57 AM
If it were Ramsey dna, you bet the handcuffs would have been slapped on John Ramsey's wrists but quick!

Shylock
01-25-2004, 12:12 PM
Gee, Shylock, that's a pretty rude comment to make!I believe my point was that it's "pretty rude" to buy underwear for someone else's children--at least in my part of the world that wouldn't be considered acceptable.

Nehemiah
01-25-2004, 02:56 PM
I believe my point was that it's "pretty rude" to buy underwear for someone else's children--at least in my part of the world that wouldn't be considered acceptable.

"southern hillbilly women" :croc:

Jayelles
01-25-2004, 03:50 PM
I believe my point was that it's "pretty rude" to buy underwear for someone else's children--at least in my part of the world that wouldn't be considered acceptable.

Maybe a cultural thing? As I posted before, Bloomies are kind of a Bloomingdales gimmicky thing. We went to Bloomingdales last July and the Bloomies were everywhere - piled up on counter ends and at every cash point in the Childrenswear department. I perceive them to be like a souvenir kind of gift.

Buying knickers for a little girl here wouldn't be thought of as rude at all - especially if they were quirky or gimmicky. Buying a brassiere would though - unless it was from a man to his partner. Also, I don't think people would consider buying knickers for an adult woman either - again unless it was from a man to his partner.

Boxer shorts is a common gift for male relatives at Christmas here. I bought my son three pairs for his stocking last Christmas - Simpsons ones, Pin-up girl ones and a pair of Calvin Klein ones. He didn't appear in the least offended.

Maxi
01-25-2004, 04:12 PM
Hey, there! My daughter and her friends at the theatre have thong exchange times in which each buys the other a thong every other week for the run of the show. And I've put fancy or fun panties in my girls' stockings since they were about 10. In my experience, day-of-the-week panties are an especially popular present with little girls, as long as they aren't going to open them at a birthday party.

SisterSocks
01-25-2004, 04:40 PM
If it were Ramsey dna, you bet the handcuffs would have been slapped on John Ramsey's wrists but quick!



:eek: Lol No doubt Toth...

LovelyPigeon
01-25-2004, 06:03 PM
Charlie, how about you find a source that says it is? Or, you could read this thread from the beginning and find a list of sources who say the DNA is not Ramsey.

I can't think of ANYone connected to this case that claims or even hints that the DNA from the panties and nail clippings is from the Ramseys. In fact, there has been no information that ANY Ramsey DNA was found on the body.

Ivy
01-25-2004, 06:35 PM
LP, according to the link why_nutt recently posted showing an FBI document pertaining to the mystery non-JonBenet DNA, the Rs can be excluded only if the DNA is from one person. If it's from more than one person, the Rs can't be excluded. At least, that's my take on it.

If the mystery DNA is from one person, it could be just noise, or it could be the result of lab contamination. And let's not forget Sum Yung Gai, who may have touched the panties, or sneezed, spat, laughed, or coughed around them during their manufacture... or anyone else who might have had some kind of innocent contact with them before that night.

Britt
01-25-2004, 06:43 PM
Right, Ivy.

The DNA is inconclusive. Period. It is the Ramseys and their supporters who keep trying to spin it as exculpatory for them.

Ivy
01-25-2004, 07:18 PM
Were just the spots of JonBenet's blood on the panties checked for foreign DNA? It would be a remarkable cooincidence if the only drops of blood that were shed in the panties landed on the only samples of foreign DNA.

Shylock
01-25-2004, 07:27 PM
Were just the spots of JonBenet's blood on the panties checked for foreign DNA? It would be a remarkable cooincidence if the only drops of blood that were shed in the panties landed on the only samples of foreign DNA.Good point. Seeing that this is a sex-related crime, you would think they would have tested the entire crotch of those panties...

Toth
01-25-2004, 08:40 PM
Fortunately the testing is not being done by the BPD therefore we atleast have some hope that it may be being done right.

Ivy
01-25-2004, 08:42 PM
Who's doing the actual testing, Toth?

LovelyPigeon
01-25-2004, 09:05 PM
Cellmark Labs in Maryland did the initial DNA testing of materials on the panties, reference http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/20/ramsey.murder/ and other reports.

Ivy
01-25-2004, 09:13 PM
LP, thanks, but I know CellMark did the initial tests. Did CellMark also test the DNA in the second sample?

Nehemiah
01-25-2004, 10:44 PM
Fortunately the testing is not being done by the BPD therefore we atleast have some hope that it may be being done right.

Yes, we're all aware that the BPD, CellMark, FBI, CBI, Aerospace, et al, were all in a conspiracy to get the Rs. Hopefully, there's one good agency out there left who isn't involved in the plot against them. :o

Toth
01-25-2004, 11:10 PM
Actually I would not refer to it as a conspiracy. I think it is simply arrogance and incompetence at the BPD and the FBI's profiling unit.
Aerospace seems not to have even issued any report of what it did and what if found, if anything. Nor do they seem to be a qualified firm.
So I would not say 'conspiracy' I would more say arrogance, incompetence and bureaucratic defensiveness.

Shylock
01-26-2004, 12:20 AM
Yes, we're all aware that the BPD, CellMark, FBI, CBI, Aerospace, et al, were all in a conspiracy to get the Rs. Hopefully, there's one good agency out there left who isn't involved in the plot against them. :oHas the RST really checked out the Girl Scouts of America? What about the YMCA?

LovelyPigeon
01-26-2004, 11:23 AM
Ivy, I have not read where the DNA testing and analysis on the 2nd spot of blood was done. Maybe someone else knows.

There may be a chain of custody question that would almost insist Cellmark be used for the 2nd testing.

BlueCrab
01-26-2004, 11:57 AM
Aerospace seems not to have even issued any report of what it did and what if found, if anything. Nor do they seem to be a qualified firm.



Toth,

Aerospace Corporation is one of the nation's most important defense contractors on the high technology side. The company does testing for police departments all over the country without cost and even trains police personnel at its laboratories on the latest advancements in technology. Aerospace sticks to its policy of not producing written reports on the work it does for law enforcement.

JMO

Toth
01-26-2004, 12:33 PM
Would you check on the exact corporate entity that is involved.

When you say 'not producing written reports' do you mean it does not generate any written reports or that it simply refuses to disclose such written reports.

Does any written report exist that relates to this 911 tape? I've always thought this nonsense about Burke's voice being on it was dreamed up by Steve Thomas and he created all this guff about "reports" and thats why he was so upset when the tape was sent to a more qualified and unbiased firm.

BlueCrab
01-26-2004, 01:21 PM
Would you check on the exact corporate entity that is involved.

When you say 'not producing written reports' do you mean it does not generate any written reports or that it simply refuses to disclose such written reports.

Does any written report exist that relates to this 911 tape? I've always thought this nonsense about Burke's voice being on it was dreamed up by Steve Thomas and he created all this guff about "reports" and thats why he was so upset when the tape was sent to a more qualified and unbiased firm.


Aerospace's "report" was the enhanced tape itself, which the two Aerospace engineers who worked on it -- Mike Epstein and Jim Roeder -- gave to Detective Mellissa Hickman on April 22, 1997 (I think that was the date) to bring back to Boulder.

All who independently listened to that original enhanced tape could hear Burke's voice (and John's and Patsy's) on it exactly as has been widely reported.

JMO

Shylock
01-26-2004, 07:07 PM
I've always thought this nonsense about Burke's voice being on it was dreamed up by Steve Thomas and he created all this guff about "reports" and thats why he was so upset when the tape was sent to a more qualified and unbiased firm.
Thomas wasn't the one in charge of getting the 911 tape enhanced. And the "more qualified and unbiased firm" as you call it was Los Alamos who also heard a third (Burke's) voice but differed only on what the voice was saying.

Burke's voice is on the 911 tape, proving the Ramseys lied about what went on that morning. Keenan proved that when she released the 911 tape on CD which contains Patsy's "help me Jesus" cries followed by a 4 second gap where John and Burke's voices are redacted.

IMO

Honeybee
01-26-2004, 07:32 PM
Is there a source other than Steve Thomas' book where I can find a report by the Los Alamos lab, in writing, stating what they found on the tape? Do we only have Steve Thomas' word for this or is there an official report which has been made public? Thank you.

Toth
01-26-2004, 08:26 PM
You really think DA-Keenan ordered the tape be altered??

LovelyPigeon
01-26-2004, 08:56 PM
No "official" or actual report on the 911 tape has been made public.

A transcript of the tape has been made public and the tape itself has been made public, though.

Shylock
01-27-2004, 01:10 AM
You really think DA-Keenan ordered the tape be altered??
She didn't "alter" the tape Toth, she released a REDACTED version of the tape, which is very normal since it's an ongoing investigation. If you remember, the original release of the autopsy report was also redacted.

As far as WHY Keenan chose to release a redacted version of the 911 tape there could be several reasons, one of them being that the deleted part contained the voice of a minor, or more importantly because it's evidence that proves the Ramseys are not telling the truth about what really happened that morning.

Blazeboy3
01-27-2004, 05:32 AM
There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?

Exactly...It's "a corrupt thing" IMHO...(DNA)!? *(For THOSE "Who Get It!?) :)

Charlie
01-27-2004, 09:27 AM
Charlie, how about you find a source that says it is? Or, you could read this thread from the beginning and find a list of sources who say the DNA is not Ramsey.

I can't think of ANYone connected to this case that claims or even hints that the DNA from the panties and nail clippings is from the Ramseys. In fact, there has been no information that ANY Ramsey DNA was found on the body.

On page one of this thread toth states:
'Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna."

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 11:36 AM
Toth is correct.

Charlie, you didn't provide a source claiming that the DNA belongs to any Ramsey.

BlueCrab
01-27-2004, 11:39 AM
On page one of this thread toth states:
'Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna."


Several years age former Detective Mark Fuhrman, on a national TV panel show, stated DNA from the JonBenet crime scene contained Ramsey family markers. Noted forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, also a panelist, gave body language agreeing with Fuhrman's statement.

JMO

Toth
01-27-2004, 01:44 PM
Mark Fuhrman knows how to spell dna. That's about it!
He obviously does not know what is meant by 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.

Barbara
01-27-2004, 03:10 PM
Charlie, you didn't provide a source claiming that the DNA belongs to any Ramsey.

Can you provide a scientific official source (not Lou Smit, Wood, Thomas, etc) that states that it does NOT belong to ANY Ram$ey?

Toth
01-27-2004, 03:21 PM
or more importantly because it's evidence that proves the Ramseys are not telling the truth about what really happened that morning. If that were really the case, why on earth would DA Keenan want to conceal this information and why on earth would she be having her investigators focusing on intruders rather than the parents?

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 03:31 PM
Barbara, I've provided multiple sources that were or are very involved officially in the case. Can you provide any one with the same amount of involvement who even suggest that the DNA belongs to a Ramsey?

And regarding an earlier question, I'll remind you that even ST said in his book that BPD couldn't establish that degradation was responsible for the small number of male markers derived from the nail clippings and blood spot.

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 03:45 PM
I'll add 2 more official sources that say the male DNA found on JonBenét is not Ramsey: Federal Judge Julie Carnes and current Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan.

Toth
01-27-2004, 05:02 PM
Won't do much good: These people think DA-Keenan doctored the 911tape to help the Ramseys and that the inexperienced federal judge was duped and denied access to all the evidence.

why_nutt
01-27-2004, 05:23 PM
I'll add 2 more official sources that say the male DNA found on JonBenét is not Ramsey: Federal Judge Julie Carnes and current Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan.

I counter with this fact: if Carnes and Keenan are authorities on individual aspects of evidence in the case, then both John and Patsy are liars, as Carnes said that Burke fell sleep in the car coming home from the White party, and Keenan agreed with her. Carnes put her reputation on the line when she put that piece of information in her ruling; as she would know, a jury is allowed to decide "false in one thing, false in all." Has she been false in this one thing? Or have John and Patsy? Did Carnes just pull a made-up fact out of her backside when she wrote "On the drive home from the party, JonBenet and her brother Burke fell asleep in the car. Defendants put the children to bed when they returned home and then went to bed soon there after"? Why would Keenan agree to such a representation of evidence in the case unless it was true?

Jayelles
01-27-2004, 06:17 PM
Won't do much good: These people think DA-Keenan doctored the 911tape to help the Ramseys and that the inexperienced federal judge was duped and denied access to all the evidence.

Carnes didn't have access to all the evidence. She wasn't allowed access to the massive 20 foot high police file that ******* is wading his way through. She worked from Lou Smit's 1998 PowerPoint presentation. You look at how much more evidence has come out since then - DNA-x is just one example.

Do you think we know everything that's in the police file? I'll bet there's a whole lot that hasn't come out.

There's a case in the British news just now about a guy whose wife went missing in the 1970s. He fell immediately under suspicion, but the police didn't charge hiim. He protested his innocence and accused police of hounding him. His indignant protests reached an all time high in the 1990s.

Last week, they arrested him and charged him with her murder - something like 20 years after her disappearance. New developments in forensic testing meant they got the crucial evidence they needed to proceed with their case.

I'd love to know the reasons why some of the people who were involved in this case and who were privy to the police file still believe the Ramseys are involved. Do they know something that hasn't been made public?

I guess it will all come out in the wash some day.

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 06:18 PM
That both kids fell asleep in the car is a generalization on the part of the judge, it seems to me. I doubt she depended on any scientific or forensic report but just her general recall on the trip home.

JonBenét fell asleep in the car, Burke did not, according to PR's police and public interviews. Both children were put to bed shortly after arriving home. The parents also went to sleep shortly after arriving home.

Male DNA on the murdered child is a bit more technical and important than both children falling asleep in the car.

Jayelles
01-27-2004, 06:24 PM
That both kids fell asleep in the car is a generalization on the part of the judge, it seems to me. I doubt she depended on any scientific or forensic report but just her general recall on the trip home.

So you are conceding that Carne's report is speculative?


Male DNA on the murdered child is a bit more technical and important than both children falling asleep in the car.

And unfortunately, Carnes did not have access to those crucial lab reports - especially the later ones which Smit didn't have.

BlueCrab
01-27-2004, 06:40 PM
I'd love to know the reasons why some of the people who were involved in this case and who were privy to the police file still believe the Ramseys are involved. Do they know something that hasn't been made public?


Not only the police, but ANYBODY who has been following the case knows at least one of the Ramseys in the house that night is involved. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for an intruder.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 06:46 PM
No, I do not think Carnes opinion is speculative. She based her legally sound opinion on the available evidence and on information from depositions taken.

There are case people (ST comes to mind) who have thought the Rs were involved from day one. And there are case people who do not. Smit was one of those who thought the Rs must have been involved from what he'd read in the papers (no footprints in snow, no sign of intruder, etc) but came to believe them innocent after reviewing the evidence for himself.

Shylock
01-27-2004, 06:53 PM
These people think DA-Keenan doctored the 911tape to help the Ramseys and that the inexperienced federal judge was duped and denied access to all the evidence.

"Redacted" Toth. Say it 10 times..Redacted, redacted, redacted..
As to why Keenan released a "redacted" version of the 911 tape you'll just have to call her up and ask her. (Actually I understand that someone from another forum already did just that and Keenan's answer was "no comment".)

And the federal judge wasn't "duped". The federal judge ruled on evidence presented by the loser Darnay Hoffman. Tell me Toth, knowing what you know about Hoffman, would YOU want to base an opinion on anything that guy has to say? Unfortunately Carnes could only rule on the evidence presented, not on the source presenting it.

Shylock
01-27-2004, 06:59 PM
No, I do not think Carnes opinion is speculative. She based her legally sound opinion on the available evidence and on information from depositions taken.
LP, "legally sound"?...LOL you must be kidding! She based her opinion on information presented by the untimate legal buffoon, Darnay Hoffman! Carnes opinion was shaped by a fool. That makes Carne's opinion completely WORTHLESS!

Edited to add: Most of the posters on this forum could have done a better job of refuting Lin Wood's false evidence, and presented a better case of Ramsey guilt, then Darnay Hoffman did.

Shylock
01-27-2004, 07:09 PM
why on earth would DA Keenan be having her investigators focusing on intruders rather than the parents?
Do you REALLY think she is, Toth? I think Keenan duped you the same way she duped Limpy so he didn't file a suit against the BPD and cause Boulder to waste even more taxpayer dollars on the Ramseys.

Don't look for anything to ever come of Keenan's investigation, the same way you'll go to your grave expecting the foreign DNA to ever make any kind of a difference in this case.

Cherokee
01-27-2004, 08:02 PM
If that were really the case, why on earth would DA Keenan want to conceal this information and why on earth would she be having her investigators focusing on intruders rather than the parents?

Keenan is "having her investigators focusing on intruders rather than on the parents"? Oh please. Don't make me laugh.

Just like Shylock said ... the ONLY reason Keenan has even made noises about investigating the JBR case and having Tom ******* go through the case files is because ... and I'll say this loudly and slowly so it can be understood ... KEENAN CAVED IN TO LIN WOOD'S THREAT THAT HE WOULD SUE THE BOULDER DA'S OFFICE AND THE BPD IF THEY DIDN'T TAKE OVER THE CASE.

It was "legal" extortion from Lin Wood and Team Ramsey.

Wood: "Take the JBR case away from the BPD and say you're investigating other leads, and we won't sue you for millions of taxpayer dollars."

Keenan: "Okay."

Wood: "Now jump!"

Keenan: "How high?"



IMO

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 08:05 PM
I am no fan of Darnay's Hoffman's and have nothing nice to say about him, including that he in any way shaped Carne's opinion.

On the contrary, Carnes opinion was based on the evidence presented by Lin Wood and as revealed in depositions, as opposed to the baseless claims of DH that Patsy wrote the note.

Keenan publically agreed with Carnes, and Keenan certainly has access to even more than Carnes or Wood.

why_nutt
01-27-2004, 09:32 PM
On the contrary, Carnes opinion was based on the evidence presented by Lin Wood and as revealed in depositions, as opposed to the baseless claims of DH that Patsy wrote the note.

Keenan publically agreed with Carnes, and Keenan certainly has access to even more than Carnes or Wood.

There you go, then. Burke was asleep in the car, there was no half hour of playing with him on John's part when the family arrived home, both John and Patsy have lied, as proven by Keenan's exposure to the evidence and her unequivocal agreement with every word Carnes wrote. In my opinion, we may be able to take this as evidence that Burke spilled those beans in his grand jury testimony. Having lied about Burke being asleep is not a criminal offense on its own, of course, but it would put a grand jury off of wanting to interview John and Patsy themselves, since they would not be certain of obtaining truthful testimony, and Keenan is of a forgiving-enough nature to let them have a pass (though that then would make me wonder whether she had some doubts and needed personal contact with the Ramseys, to let their charisma firm up her determination to see them as innocent, thus leading to that famous four-hour meeting sans Lin Wood).

You cannot have it both ways, though. If the DNA evidence presented by Lin Wood was valid and scientific enough to sway Carnes in her opinions, he had no need for these lab reports he has always screamed about wanting. And if he continues to want those lab reports, then the evidence he presented to Carnes was contaminated by being unscientific on scientific matters.

LovelyPigeon
01-27-2004, 09:44 PM
Sorry, but there is no statement that Burke did or didn't do anything after returning home. Both children were put to bed soon after returning home. That's it.

If you study human nature just a little, even just on these forums, you'll see that no one but NO one is exactly correct at all times. Memory isn't perfect, recall is flawed, and depending on either alone sometimes results in error.

Whether or not Burke fell asleep in the car, played with a model, or put on his pajamas backwards (I'm just making this one up, please do no jump on it as some factual account) has no revelance to the dissecting who killed JonBenét.

Nothing in the evidence in this case, from the DNA on the body to the handwriting in the note points to a family member. An unknown intruder is the most likely suspect to have killed her.

Imon128
01-27-2004, 10:24 PM
John Ramsey has said what Burke did after they got home. He said Burke was wanting to play with/assemble some Christmas gift he'd been given and wasn't anxious to go to bed. John Ramsey has said that he helped Burke in order to speed up the time to get Burke on up to bed. John Ramsey has said that he helped Burke get ready for bed. So I guess something has been said about what Burke did after he got home, but maybe that's not what you meant?

Shylock
01-27-2004, 11:02 PM
Nothing in the evidence in this case, from the DNA on the body to the handwriting in the note points to a family member.
You should get over to FFJ and check out the PDF file that compares Patsy's known exemplars to those letters in the ransom note. If you look closely at that file and then still don't know that Patsy wrote the note, you need a serious trip to the eye doctor.

Walk up to ANY person on the street, show them those examplars and ask, "Did the same person write these letters?" and their answer will always be "Yes".

The chance that an "unknown intruder" would break into someone's house and write a note with letters that match what the Mother of the house has previously written is an impossibility.

Charlie
01-27-2004, 11:12 PM
Toth is correct.

Charlie, you didn't provide a source claiming that the DNA belongs to any Ramsey.

LP the whole point on me asking Toth's to post the source of his statement was so i could see it myself. i didnt know of a source, obviously thats why i asked toth for it.

Shylock
01-27-2004, 11:13 PM
On the contrary, Carnes opinion was based on the evidence presented by Lin Wood

LP, you managed to forget the KEY word in your statement which would make it actually relate to the situation. Here, I'll add it for you:

"On the contrary, Carnes opinion was based on the UNCHALLENGED evidence presented by Lin Wood"

Note the difference? If a GOOD lawyer was representing Chris Wolfe he would have easily made Lin Wood and his bogus facts look like a bad screenplay. That's why anything Carnes wrote is totally meaningless to this case. Do you really think justice can be served when the case is presented by a fool?--Not even close!

Pay attention on this forum LP, there isn't a single Ramsey-did-it person here that would want Darnay Hoffman representing them on so much as a parking ticket. That should tell you a hell of a lot more than anything Carnes wrote.

Nedthan Johns
01-27-2004, 11:14 PM
From Death of Innocence: This is John speaking:

"Meanwhile, I went downstairs to try to get Burke to come up to bed, but he was deeply involved in assembling the miniature parking garage he had received that morning. I could tell he wasn't going to go to bed until the project was finished, so I settled down on the floor beside him. Helping him complete what his mind was focused on was the best way to get us both in bed quickly At about 9:30 I led Burke updatirs and got him ready for bed, then tucked him in and turned out the light. "

Ned: Note that John remember WHAT he helped Burke assemble, and also knows what time he went to bed.

I just caught something, John describes to a T what he and Burke did that night, including SETTING THE ALARM. ON the following page, Patsy picks up the story and says... (Note never mentioning awaking to an alarm clock)

"I hear John truning on the water in his bathroom and realize that it is still dark. As we always do before departing for an early morning trip, John and I will get dressed before waking up the children. Just before we're ready to , we'll get the kids up. Sometimes we even load them in the car in their pj's so they can resume sleeping in the airplane. Slowly the normal routine for an early morning flight comes into focus. Take a shower, get dressed, get going. I swing out of bed and abruptly remember that my shower is still broken. Don't need one this morning, I think to myself. Just put my clothes on. And of course, my makeup................. (NOTE THAT THIS SUGGESTS THAT PATSY DECIDED SINCE HER SHOWER WAS BROKEN, NOT TO TAKE A SHOWER THAT MORNING, HAD IT NOT BEEN WHOULD ONE HOUR BE ENOUGH TIME FOR HER TO SHOWER, GET DRESSED, GET HER MAKEUP ONE, PACK AND GET CHILDREN READY AND STILL MAKE THEIR FLIGHT?)got to be at the airport by 6:30 or so............(NOTICE THE OR SO COMMENT, YET IF YOU READ ON THE PRIOR PAGE, JOHN COMMENTS THEY LEFT THE WHITE PARTY BECAUSE THEY HAD TO MAKE THEIR FLIGHT BY 6:30 BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BE IN MINNEAPOLIS BY 11:00 TO MEET MELINDA AND STEWART. IT WAS IMPAIRITIVE THAT THEY MAKE THEIR FLIGHT) I reach for my clothes and start dressing. Minutes later I hurry down the back staris from our bedroom to the second floor, where the children's derooms are located. (MINUTES LATER? HOW MANY MINUTES? WAS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO DRESS AND PUT ON MAKEUP).... I hurry down the spiral staircase to the bottom floor and stop. (NOTE BOTTOM FLOOR). What's this? I wonder, I turn around to look at three pieces of paper on a step near the bottom. (CLEARLY PATSY TELLS US HERE THAT SHE REACHED THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS AND THEN TURNS AROUND TO SEE THE THREE PIECES OF PAPER ON SECOND TO BOTTOM STAIR. NOW SINCE I HAD A SPIRAL STAIRCASE IN OUR LAST HOME, I CAN TELL YOU IT'S VERY NARROW AND I DON'T THINK AT 5:30 IN THE MORNING EVEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO MISS A STEP) TO ME THIS STATEMENT COMPLETELY POINTS OUT THAT PATSY IS LYING.

Toth
01-27-2004, 11:44 PM
I would agree that Darnay Hoffman played no role in shaping anyone's opinion.
I think it should be remembered that ADA-Keenan, prior to becoming DA and prior to having had any contact with Lin Wood thought the BPD should be looking more diligently for an intruder in the case and less at the parents.

Shylock
01-28-2004, 01:05 AM
I think it should be remembered that ADA-Keenan, prior to becoming DA and prior to having had any contact with Lin Wood thought the BPD should be looking more diligently for an intruder in the case and less at the parents. More specifically Toth, Keenan thought Santa Bill was good for it. That and the fact that the dipchit released two different copies of the 911 tape should tell ya exactly what kind of a bimbo you're using for a reference.
The only good thing you can say about Keenan is she's got Limp Woody bluffed into thinking there really is a "new" investigation so he won't be filing any law suits in Boulder....hehe.

Cherokee
01-28-2004, 07:31 PM
From Death of Innocence: ... ON the following page, Patsy picks up the story and says ... "I hear John truning on the water in his bathroom and realize that it is still dark .... Slowly the normal routine for an early morning flight comes into focus. Take a shower, get dressed, get going. I swing out of bed and abruptly remember that my shower is still broken. Don't need one this morning, I think to myself. Just put my clothes on. And of course, my makeup. I reach for my clothes and start dressing."

How convenient. Patsy's shower is broken. And there is no other shower/bathtub in the whole darn house that Patsy can use? Patsy, the image conscious beauty queen, would rather present her stinky self in her day-old clothes to Melinda and her fiance than find some water in which to wash?

It just galls me to read this. Patsy is SO CAREFUL to explain why she was in the same clothes from the day before, and full makeup, when the police arrived Dec. 26th. She KNOWS it looks suspicious, and she KNOWS people have pointed it out numerous times, so she goes into great detail to try to explain.

"Just put my clothes. And of course, my makeup."

And of course, her makeup. Nothing suspicious there. That explains it. Just had to add that little tidbit. Couldn't just give the plain facts but had to embellish a little. Just couldn't shut up but had to cover ALL the bases. Just a little more here and a little more there. Have to keep going and keep talking and keep denying and not remembering ... and gee, this reminds me of something ... what is it? Oh yeah ... a three page, overly embellished and extraneous ransom note.



IMO

LovelyPigeon
01-28-2004, 08:14 PM
Patsy being dressed and wearing makeup at 6 a.m. was initially a BIG question.

It was discussed and questioned ad nauseum.

Of course PR addressed it in their book.

Nedthan Johns
01-28-2004, 10:51 PM
They sure did LP. Patsy points out very carefully that it wasn't until she woke that she remembered her shower was broken. Don't know about many of you, but if thats the case in our house, my wife would just jump in with me. -in fact that's happened without any showers being broke :dance:

What the book details is how Patsy waked down that spiral staircase and OVER the 3 pages of note laid out on the second to last step, then having to turn around to wonder what it was. Is her house that untidy that one has to walk over things in order to get where they are going? They directly contridict themselves when leaving the Whites house by explaining how important it was for them to leave early because they HAD to leave at 6:30 am the next morning in order to make it to Minneapolis by 11:00. Yet on the very next page, Patsy says they had to leave by 6:30 OR SO, LOL, goes into great detail of why she didn't shower. I find it hard to believe, if not impossible that a woman of Patsy's stature could awaken, have time to shower, put on makeup, do her hair, wake and get ready both of her children, while still having to pack for a cross country trip all within 1 hour. And to top it off, she an acrobat when desending her sprial staircase at 5:30 in the morning. Yeah right

Imon128
01-28-2004, 10:59 PM
Right. And if Patsy's shower had been broken for awhile, where was she accoustomed to cleaning/bathing herself? How long had it been since Patsy bathed? Did she shower/bathe prior to going to the Whites or to Pasta Jay's restaurant on Christmas Eve?

We know she didn't clean up the kids prior to the trip, nor had any intentions of such, but was John the only Ramsey household member who needed to bathe that day (or how ever many previous days)?

tipper
01-28-2004, 11:06 PM
Right. And if Patsy's shower had been broken for awhile, where was she accoustomed to cleaning/bathing herself? How long had it been since Patsy bathed? Did she shower/bathe prior to going to the Whites or to Pasta Jay's restaurant on Christmas Eve?

We know she didn't clean up the kids prior to the trip, nor had any intentions of such, but was John the only Ramsey household member who needed to bathe that day (or how ever many previous days)?
I would guess she took a shower as part of her hair dyeing on the 25th.

Imon128
01-28-2004, 11:15 PM
I would guess she took a shower as part of her hair dyeing on the 25th.


That's a possibility. However, her shower was broken so where did she take that shower? If she took a shower elsewhere for that task, why not do the same that fateful morning? It's not that Patsy says she didn't shower due to time, she said her shower was broken.

Also, one can dye one's hair without it, too.

tipper
01-28-2004, 11:40 PM
That's a possibility. However, her shower was broken so where did she take that shower? If she took a shower elsewhere for that task, why not do the same that fateful morning? It's not that Patsy says she didn't shower due to time, she said her shower was broken.

Also, one can dye one's hair without it, too.
I don't think it matters where she took her previous shower. If I had to guess I'd bet she used John's shower. But I don't see anything odd about her not showering that morning. How many showers in a 24 hour period does she need? Assuming she's not out digging ditches or loading hay.

Imon128
01-28-2004, 11:46 PM
I don't think it matters where she took her previous shower. If I had to guess I'd bet she used John's shower. But I don't see anything odd about her not showering that morning. How many showers in a 24 hour period does she need? Assuming she's not out digging ditches or loading hay.


It matters to me, where she might have showered previously (and how long it had been since she'd showered) for the reasons I stated. If I wasn't clear, I'll try to make it more clear (or more muddier, LOL). She claims she didn't shower that morning only because her shower was broken. If she had showered elsewhere, PRIOR TO THAT MORNING, that makes that reason faulty, JMO. And no, she didn't HAVE to shower that day or any day, for that matter. However, it's good hygiene and moreover, she wanted to impress Melinda's boyfriend, who would be sharing close quarters with her in a small plane. Perhaps her reason was to save face for her lack of shower, or it could be for a reason connected to JB's death.

Charlie
01-29-2004, 01:19 AM
I'll add 2 more official sources that say the male DNA found on JonBenét is not Ramsey: Federal Judge Julie Carnes and current Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan.

Ok so finally i got some kind of a source that states that the DNA found in JonBenet's panties was not Ramsey.

Basically i was thinking that if a relaible source had said its not NOT RAMSEY DNA do u think they might have just said its not from the Ramsey family DNA Line. As Patsy is only a Ramsey through Marriage. Maybe they are being very sly. Remember its just a thought.

I Hope that makes sense.

Shylock
01-29-2004, 01:39 AM
"Just put my clothes. And of course, my makeup."
And of course, her makeup. Nothing suspicious there.
Remember the photo of Christmas morning, with Patsy sitting there watching the kids openning their presents? Notice how Patsy didn't have any makup on in that photo.
So on a morning that she knows photos are going to be taken she doesn't take the time to "of course" put her makeup on--but on a morning when she doesn't have to even think about how she looks until after coffee, breakfast, whatever...she gets all dolled up.

That makes no sense at all.

BlueCrab
01-29-2004, 08:11 AM
If the Ramseys planned for and got up at 5:30 A.M. like they claim, and had to be at the airport by 6:30, it doesn't make any sense because they would NEVER had made it in time. The ride to the Jeffco airport alone takes 20 minutes.

Common sense tells us the Ramseys got up much earlier that morning than they claim. My guess is they planned for and got up around 4:00 A.M., walked into a horror scene downstairs, children were involved, and the coverup was born before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M.

JMO

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 10:44 AM
Remember the photo of Christmas morning, with Patsy sitting there watching the kids openning their presents? Notice how Patsy didn't have any makup on in that photo.
So on a morning that she knows photos are going to be taken she doesn't take the time to "of course" put her makeup on--but on a morning when she doesn't have to even think about how she looks until after coffee, breakfast, whatever...she gets all dolled up.

That makes no sense at all.

Patsy apparently had no need to impress her friend Linda McLean, as Linda was able to take a picture of Patsy sans makeup and in her bathrobe when Patsy stayed at her house and was snapped buying some baseball cards from Linda's son:

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

Toth
01-29-2004, 11:47 AM
I have no idea what makeup has to do with anything.
I can't tell from the photo whether there is make up or not.
I would certainly expect a Christmas 'photo session' to be more formal than a 'kitchen table' in a friends home looking at baseball cards.
As for routines: how many posters vary their daily routines from time to time and vary such things as make-up if they are females or shaving if they are males.

BlueCrab
01-29-2004, 12:15 PM
I have no idea what makeup has to do with anything.


One female plus one makeup table = TIME.

The Ramseys crawled out of bed a lot earlier than 5:30 A.M. if they had to be at the airport by 6:30.

JMO

Imon128
01-29-2004, 12:22 PM
I have no idea what makeup has to do with anything.
I can't tell from the photo whether there is make up or not.
I would certainly expect a Christmas 'photo session' to be more formal than a 'kitchen table' in a friends home looking at baseball cards.
As for routines: how many posters vary their daily routines from time to time and vary such things as make-up if they are females or shaving if they are males.


Was applying that makeup more important than bathing her children and feeding them?

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 12:44 PM
Was applying that makeup more important than bathing her children and feeding them?

The evidence is plain that that was true. Patsy made more of a priority of applying her makeup, and let us not forget getting herself coffee, than feeding her children a healthy breakfast with which they would face the next six hours. As testified to in the NE transcripts, what was Patsy going to let her children stave off hunger pangs with from the time they woke up until noon? Pop Tarts. Nothing like sugar and pure empty calories first thing in the morning to help a six-year-old child avoid further doctor visits and provide enough fuel to energize them for a thirteen hundred mile trip, right?

Maxi
01-29-2004, 12:53 PM
Patsy justified her early morning makeup by saying her mother had taught her to always be fully dressed (including makeup) before leaving the house. Since she anticipated leaving for the plane, that's why she bothered with her makeup.

If that's true, I don't think it terribly strange that she'd put on her makeup before waking the kids. Once the kids were up, she'd have no time for herself.

Imon128
01-29-2004, 12:54 PM
Also, did Patsy wake up with an epiphany that her shower was broken? If she knew ahead of time that her shower was broken, in affixing a time to 'get up' or set the alarm, wouldn't she have thought, 'well, I better get up at X time, because I need to get myself and the kids bathed and fed'????

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 01:15 PM
Patsy justified her early morning makeup by saying her mother had taught her to always be fully dressed (including makeup) before leaving the house. Since she anticipated leaving for the plane, that's why she bothered with her makeup.

If that's true, I don't think it terribly strange that she'd put on her makeup before waking the kids. Once the kids were up, she'd have no time for herself.

Susan Stine, though, in JONBENET'S MOTHER, said she had seen Patsy without makeup in the outside world, and everyone else in the book has been as one voice in saying that Patsy did not have a vain bone in her body, going so far as to note that she often went without her wigs when she was bald from chemo. So who is right: Is Patsy vain, showing how little her supposed friends knew her, or are her friends right, and Patsy lied to explain why she had to look the very opposite of a woman who had just killed her daughter?

Toth
01-29-2004, 01:25 PM
and let us not forget getting herself coffee The people at Starbucks would certainly agree with you.

Imon128
01-29-2004, 01:34 PM
Even the folks at Starbucks might have been kind enough to russle up a little grub for the kids, though, while they were in the kitchen. :-)

Edited to add that why_nutt and I must have posted right about the same time, LOL

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 01:38 PM
Even the folks at Starbucks might have been kind enough to russle up a little grub for the kids, though, while they were in the kitchen. :-)

Tangential it is, but I note that I subscribe to several mailing lists devoted to the stories of people who work in retail environments, and it is heartbreaking sometimes to see how much child neglect they are in a position to witness, as selfish parents devote their attentions to getting their latte served up just right while their children go neglected and put themselves at risk of harm or even death.

LovelyPigeon
01-29-2004, 10:17 PM
Charlie, I'm sure PR is not now, and never has been, male.

The unidentified DNA is from a male.

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 11:06 PM
Charlie, I'm sure PR is not now, and never has been, male.

The unidentified DNA is from a male.

More accurately, a male marker (not one of the preferred 13 core markers, more the equivalent of a 14th) was found. But given the lack of certainty about whether the non-JonBenet markers belong to one person or more than one, there is a possibility that the solo male DNA marker was left, but the other markers identified belong to a woman.

You walk into a hotel room. You see a jockstrap, and a generic t-shirt and blue jeans. Who occupies the hotel room? A man who left behind a jockstrap, jeans and a t-shirt? A man who left behind a jockstrap and a woman who left behind jeans and a t-shirt? A man who left behind a jockstrap and jeans, and a woman who left behind a t-shirt? A man who left behind a jockstrap and a t-shirt and a woman who left behind jeans? A man who left behind a jockstrap, another man who left behind jeans and a t-shirt? A man who left behind a jockstrap, another man who left behind jeans, and a third man who left behind a t-shirt?

Toth
01-30-2004, 12:14 AM
This strikes you as the type of crime an intruder would have to recruit an accomplice for???

HOW would two separate perpetrators EACH be foolish enough to leave their dna at the crime scene? Each got scratched? Each handled the panties?

Imon128
01-30-2004, 12:23 AM
This strikes you as the type of crime an intruder would have to recruit an accomplice for???

HOW would two separate perpetrators EACH be foolish enough to leave their dna at the crime scene? Each got scratched? Each handled the panties?

Gee, that's not how I comprehended why_nutt's post at all, but maybe you're not posting about that one?

Charlie
01-30-2004, 02:58 AM
I'll add 2 more official sources that say the male DNA found on JonBenét is not Ramsey: Federal Judge Julie Carnes and current Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan.


Charlie, I'm sure PR is not now, and never has been, male.

The unidentified DNA is from a male.

Again you have missed the point i was attempting to make.
Have you ever considered that the sources you states above (that said the male DNA found on Jonbenet was not Ramsey) could actually be saying the DNA wasn't from the Ramsey line.


More accurately, a male marker (not one of the preferred 13 core markers, more the equivalent of a 14th) was found. But given the lack of certainty about whether the non-JonBenet markers belong to one person or more than one, there is a possibility that the solo male DNA marker was left, but the other markers identified belong to a woman.

And from what Why-Nutt explains above the DNA could infact be Patsy's as Patsy is only a Ramsey through marriage.

BlueCrab
01-30-2004, 07:52 AM
Patsy justified her early morning makeup by saying her mother had taught her to always be fully dressed (including makeup) before leaving the house. Since she anticipated leaving for the plane, that's why she bothered with her makeup.

If that's true, I don't think it terribly strange that she'd put on her makeup before waking the kids. Once the kids were up, she'd have no time for herself.


Kids don't wake up easily. You gotta wake em up, walk away, come back and wake em up again, and perhaps repeat that routine several more times.

Every minute counted that morning if they were to be at the airport at 6:30 but didn't get up until 5:30. There was a 20-minute drive to the airport facing them.

I'm convinced the Ramseys were up long before 5:30 that morning.

JMO

Shylock
01-30-2004, 10:03 AM
Every minute counted that morning if they were to be at the airport at 6:30 but didn't get up until 5:30. There was a 20-minute drive to the airport facing them.
I agree that the time frame doesn't really work. But, things are different when you own the airplane. It's not like it would have left without them, so they could have shown up 2 hours late without a problem.

What time was it when John called the pilot and told him they wouldn't be leaving that morning?

BlueCrab
01-30-2004, 10:28 AM
I agree that the time frame doesn't really work. But, things are different when you own the airplane. It's not like it would have left without them, so they could have shown up 2 hours late without a problem.

What time was it when John called the pilot and told him they wouldn't be leaving that morning?


Not quite. The pilot has a prefiled flight plan to adhere to. And the Ramseys were rendezvousing in Minneapolis at 11:00 A.M. to pick up passengers and continue the trip to Michigan. According to Patsy they HAD to be at the airport by 6:30 A.M.

JMO

K777angel
01-31-2004, 12:06 AM
I'm convinced the Ramseys were up long before 5:30 that morning.
JMO

Bluecrab I agree with you.

Watch the crock again sometime. Pay close attention to when John Ramsey is telling Michael Tracey about helping Burke put together his toy that night and how he was trying to get him to bed because they had to get up "early, like around f....." He starts to say the "f" (four or five obviously) and then he abruptly catches himself and stops with a "uh-oh I said too much" look on his face, then throws his arm up and points at Tracey (odd) and changes what he was saying and says, "Uh... we had to get up "early" It is a very telling moment.

Why would he catch himself and be afraid to continue on saying just WHAT "time" they planned to get up that morning? I believe it is because they planned to - and DID get up much earlier than the 5:30am they claim.

why_nutt
01-31-2004, 10:17 AM
I agree that the time frame doesn't really work. But, things are different when you own the airplane. It's not like it would have left without them, so they could have shown up 2 hours late without a problem.

What time was it when John called the pilot and told him they wouldn't be leaving that morning?

Bluecrab states correctly that a timetable was in place which did not allow for leaving late. Every minute the Ramseys delayed leaving Boulder was a minute John's children and Melinda's fiance would be left high and dry waiting at the Minneapolis airport without being able to receive a call on their father's arrival status. You think John would have had no problem letting his children wait in ignorance for two hours while Patsy cleaned up potential urine-soaked sheets and clothing due to JonBenet's not having gone to the bathroom before she went to bed and then having her bladder fill for the eight hours she was asleep, or even overfill depending on when it was she last used the bathroom facilties at the White house?

Thorkim
01-31-2004, 12:42 PM
I had forgotten about that slip K777. I also agree on the timeline in the morning. Also, don't forget the other slip of that forked tongue of John's from Larry King Live in 2000. The one where he states how hectic it was and there were so many people around at 3:00 in the morning. 3:00 IN THE MORNING he says. And Larry just let it go by without questioning. I thought John was seepy-bying at that time and slept right thru the night, not hearing a thing. It's due to all these comments from the Ramsey's mouths themselves that make me amazed that no one in LE has these two in their custody.

LovelyPigeon
02-02-2004, 11:50 AM
Here's what JR actually said on the documentary, straight from the A&E transcript:

JR: Burke was downstairs trying to put together a model that he'd got for Christmas and I couldn't get him to go to bed. We were going to get up in the morning and leave to go to Michigan so I help him put it together so I could get him to go on to bed. So he went to bed and Patsy and I went to bed.

Imon128
02-02-2004, 11:58 AM
John DID falter in the time to rise, on a TV program. They did TWO CNN interviews also , actually had lots of TV time. I do distinctly recall that incident. I doubt the transcripts would print that small of a stammer, but it was a stammer, IMO, nonetheless.

LovelyPigeon
02-02-2004, 01:45 PM
Perhaps you could find a transcript that reflects that stammer or sentence structure that would confirm what was quoted by K777angel as the stammer?

Imon128
02-02-2004, 01:49 PM
LP, I think you really need/needed to see the TV show, and not go by the transcript. I saw it and heard it. I'd have to dig to give you the exact show, date, etc. Sorry.

LovelyPigeon
02-02-2004, 01:55 PM
Well, K777Angel said it was the documentary, with Michael asking John the question. The stammer isn't there and the sentence structure doesn't fit.

You suggest it was one of the CNN interviews, with Larry King asking John the question. Here's the quote from the LKL transcript March 22, 2000:

J. RAMSEY: We were planning to leave for Charlevoix, which is -- we have a summer cottage up there, we did have. We were going to rendezvous with our older kids for a first-ever family Christmas altogether in Michigan. We were to leave early that morning, fly to Michigan.
KING: Morning after Christmas?
J. RAMSEY: Morning after.
KING: What happened that night? What's the first thing -- what's the first thing you remember, Patsy?

You should notice that it is King who stammered using an "f" word ("first") rather than John.

John's stammer "...which is -- we have a summer cottage..." is recorded in the transcript.

Stammers are recorded in transcripts.

Imon128
02-02-2004, 02:07 PM
I'm not disputing K777's source. I'm saying they were on TV a lot.

That situation is barely discernable to the ear, but if you're keenly listening or listening for it, you can hear John's faux pas. Sorry I'm not more help in this situation, but I feel it's much more clear if listen to it and watch it.

LovelyPigeon
02-02-2004, 02:38 PM
But listen to it where? I have a copy of the documentary that aired on A&E. Should I dig it out for a re-watch?

Toth
02-02-2004, 02:42 PM
I shouldn't bother, things like that are usually in the mind of the beholder, not on the tape itself.