RDI fiber evidence

[DeeDee249]

Fibers can't be dated per se. In some cases a garment can be traced to a particular shop or manufacturing lot (as was done with the tape) and so in that way the fibers may have a time before which they did not exist, but as far as THESE fibers in this situation- the garrote and tape did not exist "in situ" on JB before the night she was killed, so the fibers in those particular places were left THAT night. IDI should agree with this, because they insist the cord and tape did not come from the home (despite receipts indicating an R purchased them from a local store). So..if IDI is correct about the cord and tape being brought in that night, then they will concede that PR was there when they were applied.
As far as the panty fibers- those were NEW, UNlaundered panties right out if the package. Since they were new, and JB never had them on before that night, then it follows if fibers from a shirt JR ADMITTED wearing that night were found in panties worn ONLY that night- then he was the source of the fibers inside the panty crotch. (tough to do unless he was handing the panties or the crotch). Fibers do not "float" inside panties that are worn under longjohns.
Geeze.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm very glad you asked why, HOTYH. I'll be more than happy to tell you why:

Because DNA can't be dated. There's no scientific way (even pseudo-scientific way) to show when DNA was left. BUT, we KNOW that PR was wearing those clothes THAT NIGHT. Her own statements condemn her.

Thats funny. Its not hard to determine at all that the DNA was left the night JBR was murdered. Thats simple. The DA stated that its highly unlikely that the DNA was innocent. That is, there are very few innocent circumstances of two different types of DNA from the same person, found in criminally conspicuous places, including mixed with blood, on separate articles of clothing worn by the victim. The key to knowing it was from that night is that it was on more than one article of clothing that was worn THAT NIGHT, and mixed with blood from an injury from THAT NIGHT.

This DNA, found where it was found, is way more suggestive of what happened to JBR than a few fibers found entwined in the garrote. We've gone over all that already, how parental fibers are naturally going to be all over JBR. In her hair, on her clothes, everywhere. What would be odd is the absense of parental fibers on JBR. Besides, for all you know these fibers are consistent with the intruder fabric. There were unknown, unsourced fibers as well. Why aren't those an issue? Shall we subvert them as we do the DNA, and discuss R fiber exclusively? (Just noting that many posters are literally blind to the unknown male DNA or the unsourced fiber, preferring only to discuss R fiber).

Was there any R DNA on JBR?

 

[Ravyn]

Fibers all over a child body..Ok now I find it strange that JR told the LE that PR got JB dressed that night..Now how did his wool shirt fibers ended up in a new pair of panties if he didn't dress JB..And why didn't the intruder leave more fibers on her since as you put it he was the last one with her...Between cotton and wool there is a difference...

 

[BBB167893]

Thats funny. Its not hard to determine at all that the DNA was left the night JBR was murdered. Thats simple.

That's an inference, HOTYH. Not a fact. If there's a way for forensic techs to say "this DNA was left only a few hours ago," I certainly haven't heard of it.

The DA stated that its highly unlikely that the DNA was innocent.

Again, that's an inference. Not a fact.

That is, there are very few innocent circumstances of two different types of DNA from the same person, found in criminally conspicuous places, including mixed with blood, on separate articles of clothing worn by the victim. The key to knowing it was from that night is that it was on more than one article of clothing that was worn THAT NIGHT,and mixed with blood from an injury from THAT NIGHT.

An admirable piece of deduction. But it avoids the main point.

This DNA, found where it was found, is way more suggestive of what happened to JBR than a few fibers found entwined in the garrote.

By themselves, maybe (and I hold strong reservations about maybe), but not when you take that holistic view I keep talking about.

We've gone over all that already, how parental fibers are naturally going to be all over JBR. In her hair, on her clothes, everywhere.

Except that they weren't. I've reminded people of that on this thread alone at least four times.

What would be odd is the absense of parental fibers on JBR.

You said a mouthful.

Besides, for all you know these fibers are consistent with the intruder fabric.

Oh? Speaking of consistent:

Patsy Ramsey, upon hearing what Levin has just said, changes her demeanor. She goes from calm and composed to severely rattled. Her head droops, her mouth contorts into a sick smile, and she looks as though she might faint. I wonder why she acted like that if she were innocent. What's more, she made no attempt to answer the question and give a possible innocent explanation. Two years later, she told a CBS reporter that her fibers had transferred to JonBenet that morning because Patsy, who had been wearing the same clothing she had worn at the party, laid on top of her. But this cannot explain it. In their own book, Death of Innocence, John Ramsey writes that by the time Patsy came near the body, JonBenet was already fully covered. This is borne out by the police reports. Her own story does not hold up. Think about that: this woman had two full years to come up with a story, and that was the best she could do.

There were unknown, unsourced fibers as well. Why aren't those an issue?

I think those fibers were linked to one of the dolls. Something like that. But leaving that aside for a moment, let me remind you that those other fibers weren't on those same items.

More than THAT, you're the one who keeps insisting that the cord and tape couldn't be sourced to the house and thus, were not in the house until that night. Well, that's bad news, because if that's the case, then the fibers from PR couldn't have innocently drifted onto them because there was nothing to drift on to. Which leads me to what Mysteeri said about a perp picking them up on his hands and transferring them that way. Well, if that were the case, does it not make sense that lots of other fibers would be on his hands and also transfer? Except they didn't. The ONLY fibers found tied into the cord knot were PR's. On top of that, she couldn't come up with an explanation that actually jibed with JR's earlier statements.
Lastly, since JB's body was not covered in fibers from her parents, and they were found only in those areas, what conclusion SHOULD I make?

Shall we subvert them as we do the DNA, and discuss R fiber exclusively?

It's not just the R fibers, it's everything that goes with them.

(Just noting that many posters are literally blind to the unknown male DNA or the unsourced fiber, preferring only to discuss R fiber).

Instead of throwing out accusations such as this, you might be well-served by finding out why we think like we do. IOWs, walk a mile in my shoes.

Was there any R DNA on JBR?

I would imagine so.

 

[Mysteeri]

Ok, if the only fibers found on the tape and cord were from Patsys` sweater and fibers on her panties were Johns`, it seems incriminating. I`ve thought that the oversized panties refer to someone who is not used to dress up JB, or did not know they were for her cousin.

Then there is the DNA in her new panties, and matching skin cells on her long Johns. How would one explain that?

 

[Ravyn]

Ok, if the only fibers found on the tape and cord were from Patsys` sweater and fibers on her panties were Johns`, it seems incriminating. I`ve thought that the oversized panties refer to someone who is not used to dress up JB, or did not know they were for her cousin.

Then there is the DNA in her new panties, and matching skin cells on her long Johns. How would one explain that?

Now is this DNA did anyone ever say the tech had to count out PR's Dna since she was the one that dressed JB..And should all the other evidence to be thrown out...And show me other than dolls fibers that the intruder left fibers now I have to keep in mind he or she was the last to be with JB..And after the scream how would the intruder know they would have time to wiped her down,redress her..And how could the intruder put JR's fibers in those panties if they was new out of the package even the R's said they was a gift..

 

[Mysteeri]

I`m getting confused..SD wrote: "Nothing I'm aware of. But then, she wasn't searched that morning".

Anyway, I would expect parental and other fibers to be found on her clothes, hair, room etc. Where were the fibers connected to a doll? Were her panties scraped for skin cells?

 

[Ravyn]

Now about the paties being scaped, I don't know but I thought SD was talking about some of the other fibers being JB's dolls..And he also said on JB's bed no parental fibers that he knew of...But if JR didn't dress JB at all that night how does one explain his wool shirt fibers being inside JB's panties..

 

[Mysteeri]

The fibers in JB`s new panties are indeed difficult to explain innocently, if John`s. If he carried JB to bed, some of his fibers were around and on JB, though (yes, the new panties are the problem). Could the fibers in JB`s panties be from someone else`s black shirt/jacket? I can imagine an intruder wearing black clothes. The panties should definitely be scraped for skin cells!

 

[BBB167893]

Ok, if the only fibers found on the tape and cord were from Patsys` sweater and fibers on her panties were Johns`, it seems incriminating.

Darn right!

I`ve thought that the oversized panties refer to someone who is not used to dress up JB, or did not know they were for her cousin.

They had the same day printed on them as the regular-sized ones. Who else would CARE about that?

Then there is the DNA in her new panties, and matching skin cells on her long Johns. How would one explain that?

Quite simply really. For the sake of argument, let's say JB was wearing the regular-sized panties when she was struck. Whomever staged the scene then takes them off and puts the large ones on and then puts the longjohns on over them. Now, we know JB had blood spots in the underwear when she was taken to the morgue. But there's no guarantee they were there from the time she was penetrated. Indeed, whomever did that was careful to wipe her down first. It seems likely then that those spots dripped out onto the fabric when she was carried upstairs in a vertical position.

(I'm going to hell for this. I just know it.)

Now, in all of that, is it not possible that the skin cells from the waistband spilled into those open areas of the over-sized underwear? Yes, the DNA may have been mixed with that blood, but even then, that's no guarantee the blood and other DNA were left at the same time. Far from it. Henry Lee said specifically that it was possible they were left at different times. Now, to hear some tell it, the DNA from the waistband contradicts that possibility. Except it doesn't, not really. It proves they came from the same source, but not HOW.

That's only one of several possibilities.

Another thing I should point out, Mysteeri. Something you said caught my eye:

The panties should definitely be scraped for skin cells!

I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, that's one of the problems: only the bloodspots were tested, which led some to say that those were the only places DNA was left. A bad assumption in my opinion. So either way, I agree.
Mysteeri, you're a fountain of good stuff today!

I`m getting confused..SD wrote: "Nothing I'm aware of. But then, she wasn't searched that morning".

By that I meant that PR wasn't searched for the things voynich mentioned that day. But then, it wasn't likely they would find any of that anyway. The Rs (MY OPINION!) got very lucky. JB couldn't have left any marks on them because she didn't have a chance to fight back. As for finding blood on the Rs, there wasn't any to get on them. Strangulation doesn't leave a bloody mess.

Everybody still with me so far?

Anyway, I would expect parental and other fibers to be found on her clothes, hair, room etc.

Exactly. But where are they?

But if JR didn't dress JB at all that night how does one explain his wool shirt fibers being inside JB's panties..

How indeed. He never did, for the record.

Could the fibers in JB`s panties be from someone else`s black shirt/jacket? I can imagine an intruder wearing black clothes.

Well, let me ask you this, Mysteeri: how likely is it that an intruder would be wearing a black shirt THAT distinctive to do murder, AND just happen to be the same kind that JR had? I'm not a betting man, but even if I were, I wouldn't take that kind of longshot.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Quite simply really. For the sake of argument, let's say JB was wearing the regular-sized panties when she was struck. Whomever staged the scene then takes them off and puts the large ones on and then puts the longjohns on over them. Now, we know JB had blood spots in the underwear when she was taken to the morgue. But there's no guarantee they were there from the time she was penetrated. Indeed, whomever did that was careful to wipe her down first. It seems likely then that those spots dripped out onto the fabric when she was carried upstairs in a vertical position.

(I'm going to hell for this. I just know it.)

Now, in all of that, is it not possible that the skin cells from the waistband spilled into those open areas of the over-sized underwear? Yes, the DNA may have been mixed with that blood, but even then, that's no guarantee the blood and other DNA were left at the same time. Far from it. Henry Lee said specifically that it was possible they were left at different times. Now, to hear some tell it, the DNA from the waistband contradicts that possibility. Except it doesn't, not really. It proves they came from the same source, but not HOW.

That's only one of several possibilities.

Uh huh.

Everybody still with me so far?

Almost everybody. I think I'd find out first if the DNA in the underwear was skin cells before I'd risk speculation on when and how those DNA 'fell onto' the underwear.

 

[BBB167893]

Uh huh.

Just spitballing. Goes back to that holistic approach I keep talking about.

Almost everybody. I think I'd find out first if the DNA in the underwear was skin cells before I'd risk speculation on when and how those DNA 'fell onto' the underwear.

That's actually a fair point. Well done.

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
They had the same day printed on them as the regular-sized ones. Who else would CARE about that?

What? Never heard about this.

About the DNA in the panties and skin cells. I thought that the DNA in her panties was from saliva or something, not from skin cells- that`s why I have thought it can`t be explained innocently (umm, unless there was saliva inside the longjohns..this is getting too complicated.). They scraped the waistband of the longjohns because skin cells (touch DNA) was expected to be there, I think this should go for the panties too.

About the fibers and their absence. Were the longjohns, panties, shirt, body and hair examined thoroughly? Were Johns or Patsys fibers found anywhere else on JB and her clothes, than the incriminating places discussed earlier? Sorry for the repetition, just trying to understand these fiber facts.

SuperDave wrote:
Well, let me ask you this, Mysteeri: how likely is it that an intruder would be wearing a black shirt THAT distinctive to do murder, AND just happen to be the same kind that JR had? I'm not a betting man, but even if I were, I wouldn't take that kind of longshot.

How distinct is the material and fibers of Johns shirt? I would imagine black wool fibers of different lengths are common, but if they really can determine they were from a specific Israeli manufacturer, the odds would of course get smaller. Do we know where John bought his shirt? (Just wondering if it was from Boulder or somewhere else)

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
They had the same day printed on them as the regular-sized ones. Who else would CARE about that?

What? Never heard about this.

Mm-hmm. The regular-sized panties had the word "Wednesday" printed on the waistband. The oversized ones had "Wednesday" on them, too. Christmas Day 1996 was a Wednesday.

About the DNA in the panties and skin cells. I thought that the DNA in her panties was from saliva or something, not from skin cells- that`s why I have thought it can`t be explained innocently (umm, unless there was saliva inside the longjohns..this is getting too complicated.).

Team R has tried to claim that it was saliva, but no one in any position to know has ever said what kind it is. It's actually not very complicated, I have found.

They scraped the waistband of the longjohns because skin cells (touch DNA) was expected to be there, I think this should go for the panties too.

Agreed.

About the fibers and their absence. Were the longjohns, panties, shirt, body and hair examined thoroughly?

Quite so, from what I understand.

Were Johns or Patsys fibers found anywhere else on JB and her clothes, than the incriminating places discussed earlier?

Not that I'm aware of.

Sorry for the repetition, just trying to understand these fiber facts.

No sweat.

SuperDave wrote:
Well, let me ask you this, Mysteeri: how likely is it that an intruder would be wearing a black shirt THAT distinctive to do murder, AND just happen to be the same kind that JR had? I'm not a betting man, but even if I were, I wouldn't take that kind of longshot.

How distinct is the material and fibers of Johns shirt?

Apparently, it's a exclusive shirt. At least, that's my understanding.

I would imagine black wool fibers of different lengths are common,

I believe there were velvet ones from the collar, too.

but if they really can determine they were from a specific Israeli manufacturer, the odds would of course get smaller.

Quite.

Do we know where John bought his shirt? (Just wondering if it was from Boulder or somewhere else)

That I'm not sure of.

 

[Mysteeri]

That info about "wednesday" and details of Johns shirt was very interesting.

About the fibers found, I have a question concerning the duct tape from the Bonita papers, it says: "The DNA analysis of the trace evidence recovered from the duct tape revealed a human hair, an animal hair, later identified as beaver, and various natural and man made red, blue, pink, purple and brown fibers."

Is this true? Are the hair and fibers identified? At least on the duct tape, there seem to have been other fibers than Patsys.

 

[BBB167893]

That info about "wednesday" and details of Johns shirt was very interesting.

I do my best.

About the fibers found, I have a question concerning the duct tape from the Bonita papers, it says: "The DNA analysis of the trace evidence recovered from the duct tape revealed a human hair, an animal hair, later identified as beaver, and various natural and man made red, blue, pink, purple and brown fibers."

Is this true?

I'm not sure. No other source that I'm aware of lists them. That may be a misprint. There was a human hair on the blanket, that I know of. That was later matched to PR.

Are the hair and fibers identified?

They're hardly ever mentioned in the first place, so I have to wonder. There was a doll in the house that had blue and brown fibers in its clothing.

At least on the duct tape, there seem to have been other fibers than Patsys.

Even so, it helps to remember that the duct tape was ripped off and dropped that day. So who knows what it could have picked up? It's the cord and panty fibers I'm really interested in.

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
Even so, it helps to remember that the duct tape was ripped off and dropped that day. So who knows what it could have picked up? It's the cord and panty fibers I'm really interested in.

Ah, I see, agreed.

(I`ll keep reading the Bonita papers, interesting stuff for both IDI and RDI. I didn`t even know about Johns`active duty at the SBTC (Subic Bay Training Center) in Philippines. )