underwear question

New Posts

P

popcorn

Inactive
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
136
Reaction score
3
Website
www.geocities.com
There has been much made about the foreign DNA in JonBenet's panties. According to documents it appears underwear from John and Patsy were also seized. Were any of those subjected to DNA testing?

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

How much would it cost the poor taxpayers of Colordao? Early on the suggestion of JonBenet coming between a parent's affair was mentioned that is the reason I bring this up.
 
Well, I suppose if Patsy (or John - let's not be sexist!) had a lover, there would be a chance of his/her DNA being on her/her underwear - wouldn't there?
 
Too late now, but would either of them have had any time to be with a lover when they had to get the childrens' and friends' presents ready, do some last-minute decorating, had a party the 23rd, cleanup after that which I doubt LHP completely did, pretty busy time of year. Also packing a few things for a couple of trips. Do you really think there was time for any hanky-panky?

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

Not saying McSanta necessarily masterminded whatever happened, but that some out-of-town person may have who "used" the young person Barnhill saw, who may have been the same one hanging out in Charlvoix before this happened, badmouthing John Ramsey and acting pretty crazy. Here's a really far-out thought, related to your idea. What if it was some pagan religion revival where everybody there had swinging sex? Then you could be right. I hate to even think of it, but, a collection of childrens' notches on a harp? Sounds like sacrifice, doesn't it? (Shudder)
 
is more in the realm of foreign DNA from a tryst of either parent's; more likely John who has a history of infidelity, transfering from his underwear to JonBenet's. I think what was collected per inventory lists remains in police custody so it shouldn't be too late. Assume is what was collected was the dirty laundry not from drawers. In the listing there are four terms; clothing underwear (3 pairs), clothing underwear men's (1 pair), clothing underwear child's (3 pairs), and clothing underwear girl's (6 listings but may include packages). Odd theat apparently John only had 1 pair taken to three each for Patsy and Burke and much more for the victim. If the vicitm's are individual pairs she was using more than 1 pair a day which verifies the potty training issues.

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

Where are the rest of John's shorts? How many days in a row does he wear them? When was laundry last done?
 
I've no idea about or interest in the parents underwear.
The dna under the fingernails and in the panties came from the intruder, not the parents.
 
popcorn said:
is more in the realm of foreign DNA from a tryst of either parent's; more likely John who has a history of infidelity, transfering from his underwear to JonBenet's. I think what was collected per inventory lists remains in police custody so it shouldn't be too late. Assume is what was collected was the dirty laundry not from drawers. In the listing there are four terms; clothing underwear (3 pairs), clothing underwear men's (1 pair), clothing underwear child's (3 pairs), and clothing underwear girl's (6 listings but may include packages). Odd theat apparently John only had 1 pair taken to three each for Patsy and Burke and much more for the victim. If the vicitm's are individual pairs she was using more than 1 pair a day which verifies the potty training issues.

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

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



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

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
It could also account for the black fibers from John's shirt that were found in JonBenet's crotch.
Click to expand...
No such fibers were found, that was a mere interrogation technique and John Ramsey's response to that suggestion was BxxxSxxx.
 
Toth said:
I've no idea about or interest in the parents underwear.
The dna under the fingernails and in the panties came from the intruder, not the parents.
Click to expand...

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

John Ramsey cheated on his first wife and certainly may have cheated on Patsy. Either his shorts are missing or he was perhaps wearing ladie's panties.
 
No such fibers were found, that was a mere interrogation technique and John Ramsey's response to that suggestion was BxxxSxxx.
Click to expand...

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

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

Lin Wood/******* suggesting it was so does not make it a fact.
 
Toth said:
I've no idea about or interest in the parents underwear.
The dna under the fingernails and in the panties came from the intruder, not the parents.
Click to expand...
Since you (or anyone else) can't possibly come up with an explanation how an intruder could leave so little genetic material that it wasn't possible to obtain a complete DNA strand, we can only assume the DNA in the panties came from the garment factory or laboratory contamination.
Same problem with the broken strand from under the fingernails, no identifiable source, no way to prove it's even related to the crime and not some kind of contamination or secondary transfer.
 
In any event, and if the underwear headcount is correct, WHERE'S THE UNDERWEAR?

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

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

JMO
 
Eagle1 said:
What if it was some pagan religion revival where everybody there had swinging sex? Then you could be right. I hate to even think of it, but, a collection of childrens' notches on a harp? Sounds like sacrifice, doesn't it? (Shudder)
Click to expand...

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

http://www.welcomehome.org
 
Assuming all the underwear the cops took from the house as evidence were dirty:

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

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

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

Could it be - that DNA-x is female? That would explain why there was no need to compare Wolf's DNA with it? And if what you say is true - that Arianna Pugh's DNA was taken 2 years later, then perhaps they were checking female DNA at that time?
 
It's possible all the DNA is female. References to it being male originated from the RST. No official documents have ever been released.
 
Are we counting pairs of underwear from the police inventories? Cause the BPD said those inventories weren't entirely accurate. Some things were counted twice, so maybe some things were never counted at all.
 
The only inventory I heard wasn't accurate was that of Pam's escapade where she supposedly removed a painting, a bible, clothing, stuffed animals, dolls, family mementos, photographs and personal papers. There are different things listed depending on the book. Funny the memento stuff was not centered around JonBenet but included Patsy's baby shoes and John's baby rattle. That act alone reeks of something and is worthy of investigation by a psychologist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab
 
Jayelles,that is interesting! I never put the two together however it makes sense.
DNA-x...I assumed meant DNA (unknown)..but..given all DNA is unknown until matched ,the "X" may have very well stood for "female",which does make sense.
Now what are we to think?
IMO JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 239 more.
Total: 3,958 (members: 240, guests: 3,718)

Online statistics

Members online
240
Guests online
3,718
Total visitors
3,958
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,542
Messages
17,954,372
Members
228,529
Latest member
INSYSIV
Back
Top