I believe it was black tights JonBenet wore under her pants. She also wore little black boots, but I don't see them listed in the search warrant.
There was dirt and lint found under her feet. I would assume the lint came from her tights.
If JonBenet were wearing tights, then the fibers from the tights should have been found on JonBenet's panties.
Thanks for the info, Toltec. These "little black boots" were these snow boots? or dress boots? or does anyone know? Did she wear snow boots out of the house and change into dress boots at the party? PR was very concerned with appearances...would she want JB wearing snow boots in the house at a party? Would she want her to wear dress boots to play in the snow? I think there may have been two sets of boots and both should have been collected as possible evidence. Boots can be lined with dark fibers or have dark fiber evidence left in them from another source (tights, socks, leggings etc.) Some boots have dark WOOL linings.
JB might have been wearing shoes or boots also when she was murdered, we just don't know for sure, do we? Why was so little footwear evidence collected? Why wasn't footwear evidence collected from everyone in that home and anyone who may have been in that basement? I know LE spent a lot of time and energy searching for Hi-tech boots because of the print but what about socks, slippers, shoes and other boots? What did FW wear down there? His shoes? Or did he take his shoes off at the door? Was anyone in their stocking feet in that home during the investigation? Socks or tights could pick up a lot of fibers and track them around. Did visitors wear snow boots inside the Ramsey home? What were people wearing when they arrived at the Ramsey's the morning of the investigation? Was snow being tracked all around?
Lint on her feet (if that is what it was) could possibly have been from her tights, or tights and socks, or just socks or another source(s)...right? We don't know for sure, do we? Yes, if JB wore cotton tights there would most likely be fibers from them on her panties, especially with cotton tights over cotton panties. Fibers may not necessarily be found on panties put on AFTER the tights and original panties were removed. Or fibers from the tights might not be found on panties put on her after tights and panties were removed, a pull-up put on, the pull-up removed and then new panties put on.
If JB had changed (or been changed into) a pull-up when she got home right before going (or being put into) bed, she might not have put tights back on to sleep in or PR might not have put tights over a pull-up if she didn't want to wake JB up too much. Some kids sleep soundly enough they just barely wake up and fall back asleep so I think PR could have changed some of her clothes without fully awakening her. She might even have left tights on her and either not put long underwear on her or she could have put long underwear OVER the tights. She could even have put a pull-up on her, put the tights or different tights AND the long underwear on her. (Didn't I read somewhere the R's said they sometimes had the kids wear PAJAMAS to the airport?) If that is true, PR could have put long underwear OVER tights thinking she'd be ready to just get out of bed in the morning, right? Weren't they going to be in a rush in the morning? If that was the case, she might NOT want her in a pull-up because she'd have to take everything off to change into underwear. I doubt PR would want her wearing a pull-up in public. What was more important to PR...having JB in a pull-up to not risk having to bathe her? or having her being already to get to the car with nothing but a quick stop to the bathroom and time to slip on boots? Or what if JB did not even go to bed that night? What would she have had on? What if JB was put in bed and left dressed? PR put the previous days clothes back on, did she just leave her in her clothes so she'd be ready to get up and go? LE collected tights but did they consider other footwear? Does LE have more evidence than we are privy too? That is possible, right? (Especially if it incriminates minor(s), right? Aren't there "blacked out" items on the evidence lists?) Hmmm. Could there be a list(s) which wasn't released?
Bottom line is we really don't know FOR SURE what, if anything, JB had on her feet before bed, in bed, out of bed, OR what she had on her feet, if anything, when she was murdered. So....shouldn't LE have collected all her socks, shoes, boots, and slippers? And even if they did, isn't it POSSIBLE she had something on her feet which was a one-of-a-kind item (non-same lot socks or tights) which was removed from the scene? Do any of the fibers found in her BED match the fiber evidence in the basement? What about the family members socks? Shouldn't socks have been collected for evidence or to rule out fiber evidence as NOT coming from a possible intruder?
If JB went willingly down to the basement to play with her brother or look for presents they'd seen but not received (as in partially wrapped presents found, if you follow me?) PR said she wrapped presents in the basement, right? And a partially wrapped FAO Schwartz present can be seen in a crime scene photo? Anyway, JB MIGHT have slipped on slippers, shoes or boots over socks, or tights, or socks and tights, or bare feet, right? There had been broken glass in the basement (ornaments), it was WINTER, the basement floor wasn't clean...she may have been told not to go down there without shoes, etc. IF she and her brother snuck down there she MIGHT have put shoes, boots, or slippers on to do so, right? I'm not saying I think this is probable. I'm just asking...isn't it POSSIBLE? Footwear could have had VERY IMPORTANT evidence. Also, MISSING footwear from the HOME could have been an important CLUE. Did the R's check to see if any slippers, boots, or shoes were missing? Were they questioned about socks and tights bought in multiples? Socks or tights which were purchased from the same lot as socks or tights which left fiber evidence might help identify the type of source of fiber evidence left at the scene if not the exact article. Yes, LE took tights as evidence. BUT WHAT ABOUT SOCKS???? Slippers? Shoes? Boots?
I know a lot of people think the Garland in JB's hair came from being carried down the stairs...and I think that is very possible but weren't those Garlands stored in the basement? Couldn't she have gotten part of that Garland in her hair from the basement? Either while she was alive or after death?
Colorado? Snow? Winter? Asleep in car? Pineapple in kitchen? Basement?
Barefeet? Lint or Dirt on feet? Dark Fibers? Wiped?
Why aren't we reading MORE about socks, tights, slippers, shoes, AND boots??????? Why aren't there MORE of these items on the evidence lists? Did LE collect all the socks from everyone in the home from the dirty laundry piles, by their beds, in the bathroom? If someone was in that basement with stocking feet...their socks would likely be a goldmine of fiber evidence, right? Looking at those photos, I sure wouldn't go down there barefoot, would you? If you were worried about leaving shoe prints...what would you do? If you didn't wear slippers or shoes, would you go barefoot? Would you wear socks? If you quickly showered would you remember to hide your socks RIGHT AWAY? Could you have tracked evidence to your bedroom floor? Was the bathroom rug or area near the dirty clothes or by a chair where he might sit to remove his socks searched for possible evidence? Yes, he lived in the home but if a lot of debris from the basement was located right where he removed his socks, that would be important, right? Could someone who wore socks in the basement and then showered put those same socks back on wrong side out? Could someone have worn socks in the basement wrong side out then turned them right side out and either put them right back on or after a shower? Did LE ask anyone to remove their socks to look at their feet and inside of their socks?
What IF you never took your socks, nylons, or tights off from under your black pants, would you still have them on if you had spent a lot of time writing a ransom note and fixing your make-up? If you wear nylons under your pants for a smooth line, might you wear socks over them to keep them from getting dirty or snagging?
Would the intruder(s), IF there, leave their boots or shoes on to sneak around in the house? Maybe. Could they have been in the basement in stocking feet? Yes, IF there were intruders. So fiber evidence by or on the body could have come from the perp's socks...from I or R, right?
What if the perp had a foot fetish? Could the perp have removed footwear to see the feet? To take as a souvenir?
We know LE collected Fiber evidence from IN her bed, shouldn't they have collected socks from JB and all the family members to see if some of the fibers IN her bed were from family members' socks? Didn't someone say JB sometimes went into her brother's room to sleep in his bed? Did he sometimes go into her room to sleep with her? Didn't PR allegedly sometimes sleep in the other bed in JB's room? Some people sleep with socks on, or wear socks in the house when they aren't sleeping. Wouldn't it be helpful to know whose sock fibers were found IN JB's bed ON the sheets which were ON her bed the night she was murdered?
Sorry this is so long...I had to jot down all my thoughts as they popped into my head. What is Possible...even if it is not Probable and what is Proof?
