The Misdirection and Deception of the DNA

FY1234

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
36
Reaction score
61
Cottonstar:

It makes sense for all the bloodstained items to be in the basement.
Why did both the nightgown and the sequin top have bloodstains? She was either wearing one or the other when she was attacked and killed so how did blood get on the other item?
 
Last edited:

Cottonstar

Victimologist|Misdirectionist
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
1,329
The urine stained long johns, that JonBenét was found in are confirmed to be Boys sz 6-8, JE Morgan Arctex long underwear.

upload_2018-12-5_19-21-12.jpeg


upload_2018-12-5_19-23-15.jpeg


CS
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-12-5_19-22-0.png
    upload_2018-12-5_19-22-0.png
    547.2 KB · Views: 61

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,430
I think it's likely that Patsy put JonBenet to bed in the red turtleneck and some kind of long johns (if not those particular long johns) because she was expecting to take a sleeping child out into the cold before dawn. You'd want the kid to be dressed warmly, but you wouldn't want the hassle of dressing a groggy and perhaps uncooperative child at 6am.

As another poster has suggested, Patsy may have wanted JonBenet to be wearing that particular red turtleneck to meet the rels. We know Patsy and JonBenet fought about it before going to the Whites'. JonBenet won that one. (Maybe they fought about it again that evening.) If Patsy had a preconceived notion about what JonBenet was going to wear the next day, she might not be too thrilled if she soiled herself.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,957
Reaction score
3,460
Would that mean they were too small for Burke then assuming he wore Medium for his age?


FY1234,
Possibly not too small, just not long enough, he was Nine, so he is just one year out, unless the length is critical, he could get away with wearing them, say when playing baseball?

.
 

archieil

On Time Out
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
241
Reaction score
15
Website
www.facebook.com
I think that "thermal product" is an important factor in this case.

I would assume they were used as an additional clothing... no matter for Burke or for JonBenet. In both cases, they could be placed in her room. Burke was sleeping in her room from time to time and JonBenet was sometimes sleeping in his room.

There is no Burke DNA on them so it should be assumed they were freshly washed.
 

Cottonstar

Victimologist|Misdirectionist
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
1,329
Cottonstar:

It makes sense for all the bloodstained items to be in the basement.
Why did both the nightgown and the sequin top have bloodstains? She was either wearing one or the other when she was attacked and killed so how did blood get on the other item?
Very good question. I’ll talk about it more in my blog next week.
 

mickey2942

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
11,652
Reaction score
109,627
I think it's likely that Patsy put JonBenet to bed in the red turtleneck and some kind of long johns (if not those particular long johns) because she was expecting to take a sleeping child out into the cold before dawn. You'd want the kid to be dressed warmly, but you wouldn't want the hassle of dressing a groggy and perhaps uncooperative child at 6am.

As another poster has suggested, Patsy may have wanted JonBenet to be wearing that particular red turtleneck to meet the rels. We know Patsy and JonBenet fought about it before going to the Whites'. JonBenet won that one. (Maybe they fought about it again that evening.) If Patsy had a preconceived notion about what JonBenet was going to wear the next day, she might not be too thrilled if she soiled herself.

Fighting with a 6 year old? I really can't even imagine it. That was some strange dynamic. My kids didn't talk back or fight until 10, and they only did it once or twice.

Why would a Mother be angry with a child who has an incontinence problem? At age 6, that happens sometimes. Especially if the child is stressed.

Why would a stranger take JBR downstairs for molestation? If a stranger went to the effort of breaking in, he would have taken JBR out.
 

dcountmontecristo

Free Thinker
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
149
But conveniently, Lacy nor any of the Ramseys make any mention that Burke was not excluded. Why did Lacy hide these reports from the public? Do Ramseys have a right to sue those questioning Burke’s involvement when Burke’s name is right there on the reports - can’t exclude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but the test also mentioned that he cant be included... so how do you explain that?
 

dcountmontecristo

Free Thinker
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
149
But conveniently, Lacy nor any of the Ramseys make any mention that Burke was not excluded. Why did Lacy hide these reports from the public? Do Ramseys have a right to sue those questioning Burke’s involvement when Burke’s name is right there on the reports - can’t exclude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what confuses me is for you to emphasize that he cant be excluded..what was written on the report... "Burke cant be included and excluded" and i believe that doesnt mean the same when you only emphasize on the latter.. regardless, it was not mentioned or not, the point is the dna evidence is just one part of the entire evidence in this case..without corroboration, the dna evidence still cant be used to clear them.. that's all
 
Last edited:

dcountmontecristo

Free Thinker
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
149
To be clear: BR cannot be excluded as a contributor to the tDNA on the waistband of the long johns that JonBenét was found in. Furthermore, on all four samples tested on the pink Barbie nightgown, including the front and back of the hem area, BR’s tDNA is present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

sorry but the exact words mentioned in the report =>" Burke cannot be included and excluded" .. i believe you cant interpret that statement with only focusing on one part because clearly they were used as one...
 

David Rogers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
280
Reaction score
487
sorry but the exact words mentioned in the report =>" Burke cannot be included and excluded" .. i believe you cant interpret that statement with only focusing on one part because clearly they were used as one...
Maybe because he was under 10 they couldn’t include or exclude him.
 

dcountmontecristo

Free Thinker
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
149
Maybe because he was under 10 they couldn’t include or exclude him.

if you are referring to the Colorado children's code of conviction, i dont think it was even relevant. why? because those were from a lab report from Bode. only a certified and trained dna analyst knows exactly what it really meant. my point was, it cannot be interpreted by just looking at it in a contextual manner. just sayin'
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,957
Reaction score
3,460
Burke cannot be included and excluded
This is just typical legalese, over here politicians when they do not want to answer a question say I cannot confirm or deny, so its probable that they know but are under an injunction to keep it private?

From memory these tests came long after those undertaken on the Barbie Nightgown where BR's touch-dna deposits slipped out.

.
 
Top