Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Smelly Squirrel, Jul 28, 2011.
So, assuming PR wrote the note, what does that mean in light of the "unknown male" DNA evidence?
This is explained extensively here previously, but the short version is that the unknown male DNA, being SKIN CELLS, could have come from anyone the parents or JB had contact with that day. A doorknob- a toilet handle, etc. That DNA may have NOTHING to do at all with the murder of JB.
Patsy writing the note means, whether she was the killer or not, she KNEW what happened. The note was a cover-up, for herself or someone else.
Never mind. New to the case. See now the underwear evidence is too ambiguous.
Edited to add: Thanks DeeDee, crossposted over you
OK, let's be clear here...
You would be correct about the skin cells being innocuous except that they were found on the area the police surmised the killer would have had to have touched (the sides of JBs longjohns). Plus, they matched DNA found elsewhere.
On the other hand, it seems any intruder would have been wearing gloves- no fingerprints found anywhere, including on the RN- so how would handling the long johns have transferred any of his/her skin cells? I've never heard it speculated whether or not the IDI theorists believe the killer wore gloves going into the Rs home.
Let's be clear here as well: The parents BOTH admit to touching the longjohns. Patsy said she put them on her, and JR was SEEN carrying JB's body up from the basement with his hands around her waist. The police have never surmised there was an intruder. It was the subsequent DA ML who "surmised" the killer would have touched the clothing there. Surmising is not proof. But the parents definitely touched the clothing there.
The DNA on the clothing did NOT match any other DNA found elsewhere, because there was no usable DNA found anywhere else.
No intruder prints were found anywhere because there was no intruder.
DeeDee249, why do you say no usable DNA was found anywhere else?
"DNA from two sites on the long johns matched genetic material from an unknown male that had previously been recovered from blood in JonBenet's underpants.
I don't think we can definitively conclude there was an intruder based on the touch DNA. But I do think it introduces an extra element of "reasonable doubt".
I said DNA was recovered from her clothing. The panties are clothing. The BLOOD in the underpants was JB's own blood. The DNA was on the clothing in several locations, including where the blood had oozed from her sexual assault. There was NO strange male blood. If there had been, it would be much more likely the male DNA had been left at the time of the crime, as the panties were not even out of the package until the time of the crime (despite Patsy's claim they had been put in JB's panty drawer). The panties found on the body were NEW, never-laundered fresh from the package. Not only that, the Wednesday pair would have come from the middle of the package (they are placed in the package - in this case a clear plastic tube- in order of the days of the week. That meant it wasn't just a matter of pulling put the first pair, but it was a deliberate choice to use the Wednesday pair. AND the rest of the set
(6 pairs) were sent to LE via the Rs attorneys 5 years later still new in the package. So much for Patsy's claims she put them in JB's drawer for her to wear.
BTW, CBS news and other "reputable" media had several inaccuracies in this case. The old media reports STILL say there was an unknown pubic hair found on the white blanket, when it was PROVEN years ago that it was actually a forearm (ancillary) hair sourced to Patsy Ramsey. No media "giants" stepped to to print that little "correction", did they? Nor did they print the correction that the "mystery palm print" was from JR's older daughter, and had no relation to the case.
Of course, the "friends" called to the R house that morning (in blatant disregard of the RN''s warnings) did a GREAT job of destroying any possible DNA evidence left behind- they wiped the kitchen counters - where the possible murder weapon was found, with windex, erasing forever any possibility of lifting prints from any so-called intruder or anyone else.
I said DNA was recovered from her clothing. The panties are clothing. The BLOOD in the underpants was JB's own blood. The DNA was on the clothing in several locations, including where the blood had oozed from her sexual assault. There was NO strange male blood. If there had been, it would be much more likely the male DNA had been left at the time of the crime, as the panties were not even out of the package until the time of the crime (despite Patsy's claim they had been put in JB's panty drawer). The panties found on the body were NEW, never-laundered fresh from the package. Not only that, the Wednesday pair would have come from the middle of the package (they are placed in the package - in this case a clear plastic tube- in order of the days of the week. That meant it wasn't just a matter of pulling put the first pair, but it was a deliberate choice to use the Wednesday pair. AND the rest of the set (6 pairs) were sent to LE via the Rs attorneys 5 years later still new in the package. So much for Patsy's claims she put them in JB's drawer for her to wear.
Not only that, CBS news articles had several inaccuracies that were never corrected. Among them, the false statements that an "unknown pubic hair" had been found on the white blanket. Later PROVEN to be a forearm (ancillary) hair from Patsy Ramsey, no one in the media reported that little mistake, nor did they correct the false statement that there was an unknown palm print - later PROVEN to belong to JR's older daughter and having nothing to do with the case.
The R "friends" that were called to the home that morning (in blatant disregard of the RN's warnings) did a GREAT job of obliterating evidence as well. They were seen wiping the kitchen counters with Windex- a location where the possible murder weapon- the flashlight- was sitting. For all we know, they may have been the ones to wipe that down as well.
I still can't believe Officer French allowed these random people to remain in an unsecured crime scene. This guy was the place where the "buck stops" when it comes to going back to the root of the mistakes in this case. First he can't figure out how to open a simple wood latch, which allowed the untouched condition of the crime scene and body to be compromised forever.
Sorry to sound like a broken record (and I will not bring this up again in future posts) but we don't know that the size 12 panties were taken from package just before being placed on JBR. If you say they were never laundered, I'll accept that, as you have extensive case knowledge. But it's possible for them to be loose in her drawer and still un-laundered. It's also possible the package was placed in the drawer instead of the panties being removed from the pack and placed loose in the drawer. I don't recall from the interviews that this detail was ever nailed down.
I suspect you are correct that the Wed. pair was chosen deliberately. The chance of it being pulled from the pack randomly was 1 in 7, and if they were loose in JB's drawer, the chance of random selection was much lower.
We don't know that the incomplete package of 6 pairs that was given to LE 5 years later was the same package.
If we theorize that JR took the panties out of the house with him on the 26th, w/o PR's knowledge, why would he keep them around to be discovered by her?
Well, we DON'T know for sure, of course, because we weren't there. But the panties were tested and found to be new (unlaundered), and as part of a set of 7 they were obviously taken from somewhere and put on her. As there were NO other size 12 found in the house (that much is fact, or at least as much of a fact as we have to go on- LE makes this claim during Patsy's interviews, and as the rest of the tube was returned IN the tube to LE 5 years later, we can only deduce that the panties on JB came from the tube that had been in a wrapped gift in the basement. I don't know of any mom who'd put child's panties in a drawer still in the package, but obviously it can't be ruled out because it can't be proven one way or the other.
JB couldn't read- her family admitted this. Someone else had to select the Wednesday pair for her, and just knowing what I have come to know of Patsy, she'd be exactly the kind of person who would want the day on the panty to be the day it actually was. As I have mentioned before, I feel the choice of day wasn't random. Christmas Day that year WAS a Wednesday, and it was no coincidence.
I believe Patsy also bought a set of those panties for JB in her proper size along with the set she bought for her niece as a gift. I'd have a had time believing Patsy would not also have bought one for her own daughter. As to why there were none in JB's usual size found in the drawer- I have a theory on that. If JB was wearing her own Wednesday pair that day, and it came from her panty drawer, which also contained the other 6 pairs, there was a risk that someone at the White's party may have helped JB in the bathroom and noticed the "novelty" panties. That was why she had to be redressed in an identical pair (except for size). BUT it would also make it necessary to remove the rest of her own set of day-of-the-week panties because if the rest of the set was found, and was her usual size (6) it would be suspicious if the pair found on her was a different size, especially if the size 6 Wednesday pair was missing.
Again- I honestly think the R had no idea the size of the panties they redressed her in would be either noticed or made a big deal of.
Right again in that we don't know if the panties given to LE 5 years later is the identical remaining set that the Wednesday panties came from. The prints and colors of these panty sets do change from time to time, and only Bloomingdale's would be able to verify if a set such as was returned to LE was consistent with a set that would have been available in their store in November 1996. Obviously the best time for LE to have tried to obtain this verification would have been right after they came into their possession. But I have a feeling they did not try to do this. No surprise there.
I am not so sure JR would have snuck any panties from the house without Patsy's knowledge. Regardless of who the killer was, BOTH parents know who it was, know what happened, and were involved in the staging of the crime scene to varying degrees.
I think you're right about the Wed. pair be selected on purpose.
They would have to have known. IMO it's impossible that they would have thought no one would notice or question it. This suggests to me that the Wed. feature was of extreme importance -at least in their minds. So important that it overrode the size issue. The only other explanation I can think of is that if a male redressed her, he may not have realized how wrong the size was. Male underwear -especially boxers- are big and loose. This would be especially true if the panties really were in the drawer -a male would assume them to be appropriate. If I had to choose I'd say the were selected for the Wed. feature, despite the size.
I suspect you are right that no effort was made to verify that the pack returned 5 years later was consistent with what was available when PR bought the panties in Nov. 96.
It's merely a possibility. It would explain why PR told LE the panties were in the drawer - they were, as far as she knew. After all, if she knew the panties were never in the drawer, then she knows LE didn't find any in the drawer. Why lie about something so easily disproved?
I agree they both know who the killer was. They both know most of what happened. They both were involved in staging, but perhaps they didn't do all of the staging together. Maybe PR was writing the RN while JR was doing something else?
I think the panties HAD to say Wednesday- that WAS important to them. But the fit was secondary. To look at her- she was wearing them under longjohns which fit tight to the body, and the way the panties fit was not visible. And she was undressed by the coroner on the autopsy table. I really do not believe the Rs felt anyone else would think the fit was suspicious. They did not need to fit in a way to be "functional". They just needed to say "Wednesday". I think they felt the fit would be overlooked.
I do not think they gave it any thought at all. This is why they made a staging mistake and we are discussing it. The size choice is the more costly of three possible errors, size, day of week, and brand. The latter two can be attributed to chance or taste, not so the size!
Ok, so why not take Wednesday pair from JonBenet's underwear drawer?
As I remarked only the BPD know which the day of the week underwear was retrieved from JonBenet's underwear drawer. There may be a Wednesday pair there, but not a Bloomingdales make, so?
This is a good question. Not only that but we know that Patsy knew in advance of her interview that JonBenet was wearing Bloomingdale size-12's, so she has had time to prepare an explanation. Its possible that Chrishope is correct and that the size-12's may have been in JonBenet's underwear drawer?
Prima facie it seems as if Patsy has staged particular circumstances then someone else either deliberately or accidentally altered her staging e.g. removed the size-12's.
I'm going to guess its forensically related, otherwise why bother removing the size-12's? If the size-12's were originally in the basement, then to make the wine-cellar staging realistic they would need to be found upstairs. So might the redresser not have thought lets put the remainder in her drawer?
I reckon as per the wiped flashlight someone has been checking or revising the staging and decided to remove the size-12's. Who knows why, my guess would be the worn size-6 pair were put inside the size-12's package, so with the forensic contamination they were removed either by Burke, or Pam?
I think the reason we are discussing the size-12's is that they were a last minute addition, part of a revised staging. As you suggest their functionality was of no great merit. They simply lend some credence to the notion that JonBenet was kidnapped from her bed, dressed in the same underwear she wore to the White's party, since no Ramsey admits removing them. The choice of a Wednesday pair may or may not be identical to what she wore to the White's, but it is consistent with the suggestion she may be wearing the same pair worn to the White's, which on a Wednesday could be that day of the week pair?
I think it was a male who made all these assumptions, redressed JonBenet, then for whatever reason removed the remaining size-12's.
Patsy was just too clever to think we would neglect the size feature but question the day of the week.
Interesting. I had not considered the possibility they were taken upstairs to be put in the drawer that night.
It's possible then that an agreement or understanding was reached that the size 12s would be placed in the drawer, but for some reason that never happened. PR may have confidently told police that the 12s were in the drawer, not realizing that part of the plan was not completed -or was altered.
It's interesting that we have 3 theories as to the size issue.
DeeDee249 believes that the Rs thought others would not notice the size, or question it.
UKGuy doesn't believe the Rs gave the size any thought at all.
I believe they knew the size would raise issues but they needed to use them despite the size - possibly because they said Wednesday, or possibly because of their forensic cleanliness, or both.
This is where critical discussion leads. Formerly the day of the week feature appeared gospel.
My view is that a crime-scene staging was taking place, now as DeeDee249 points out, JonBenet was never going to walk about in them.
Although you can view the size-12's as representing JonBenet's dressed state on arrival back from the White's.
Underwear is not mandatory, since you can blame the intruder for them missing, also she is wearing the longjohns, its possible to view the size-12's more as an obscuring device than a gesture to a particular dress code.
This is where and why I think the mistake was made, and I doubt its one Patsy would make?
So you tell me, if you go to the bother of placing the size-12's onto JonBenet, would you leave the remaining pairs lying in the wine-cellar or somewhere in the basement?
We know, the redresser knows and the police knows that the underwear JonBenet was wearing was going to be discovered and identified as unusual.
So the R's made a big mistake.
Can you ever see Patsy thinking, oh they will never notice the size of these pants, and we can say we just put her straight to bed. I seriously doubt it?
The size mistake per se tells you it was overlooked or ignored.
They couldn't just got to JB's panty drawer to get her OWN Wednesday panties because she was WEARING her own Wednesday panties that day. And I'd say that whatever caused her to bleed and scream probably caused those original panties to be stained with considerable blood. What to do? Replace them with another pair of Wednesday panties, which Patsy KNEW existed. Only problem was they were the size 12s bought for her niece. Didn't matter- they would suffice. Only later did the size become an issue.
The size 12s had a few drops of blood too. But I believe this oozed out after she was redressed and was not seen by whoever redressed her. There was not even enough of it to seep onto the lonhjohns, on which no blood was found.
There were no day-of the week panties found in EITHER size in the house. Having to get rid of the original ones meant they ALL had to be disposed of. Or someone might wonder where the missing Wednesday panties were.
Having used the Wednesday size 12s, the rest had to be hidden as well. (or disposed of). I am sure Patsy didn't think she'd be asked about the panties. When she was, she said she had put them in the panty drawer, knowing it wasn't true. Police said they hadn't found any. That wasn't Patsy's problem because by the time she was questioned, the house had been sold (to a group of R friends), emptied, all the carpets picked up and all the walls painted. Crime scene clean-up.
I'll get back to you. Need to mull things over a bit.
So you're saying there was only one set in size 6.
I had always assumed the panties were completely removed for this element. But perhaps not.
But the question is, why allow size to be an issue?
From the inventory list on A Candy Rose, I didn't see size or "DOTW" listed. So from that source, I don't think we know that none were found. But you have more case knowledge than I have, so I'll take this as true for now.
If they were going to tell the story that the size 12s were in JB's drawer -with the implication that JB must have put them on herself, then there would be no need to get rid of the size 12s. None are missing. All are accounted for, including the Wednesday pair JB is wearing. In fact, it would look better if the other size 12s were in her drawer.
If she didn't know of the size 12s being placed on JB she'd have no reason to think she'd be asked. If she did know about the 12s being put on JB how could she possibly not foresee having to explain it?
Well, that's an assumption you are making, but it may be incorrect. It's possible, quite possible, she was telling the truth. It's also possible she was telling the agreed upon story, not realizing the panties were never put in the drawer, or had been taken out of the drawer. I'll ask again, why would she say they were in the drawer if she knew they weren't, and therefore knew the police could not have found them in the drawer?
It's true police took their sweet time getting around to the question - after all, the size 12s had to be discovered when the coroner started his work. But the relevant time period is not the date of questioning, rather, it's the date the police took possession of the panties from JBs drawer. The inventory lists, where panties are listed, are dated 26 and 27 Dec. If I recall correctly, Pam Paugh doesn't start making off with evidence until the 28th. So at least for one full day - the 27th- boulder police acted like professionals. You know, kinda, sorta. So there is a problem. The panties are too big, which requires an explanation, and the other size 12s are not in the drawer, which negates the explanation given.
Why not, there may be another pair of size-6 Wednesday underwear in her drawer. We do not know and its telling that the BPD have not revealed this information.
What is so important about the Wednesday feature, when the size feature blows them out of the water? A much better solution would have been to neglect the Wednesday feature and select any Day-Of-The-Week size-6 underwear from her drawer. You can always argue anyone who says otherwise must be mistaken, who can corroborate this Wednesday feature?
Please refer me to the evidence list or BPD release that references this information.
Maybe, so what happens when someone asks: Where is the rest of the day of the week size-12's?
Why? You know their disappearance was such a red flag they reappeared years later.
Patsy may have been ignorant about the eventual location of the size-12's, as she would have been better off suggesting that it looked like the intruder had stolen them?
Whats really curious about those size-12's is that they do not pass any common sense crime-scene staging test. They fail spectacularly on the size issue. It could be that the redresser selected those size-12's at random, we do not know, or they were selected so to say something about the staging. Whatever the reason for the Wednesday feature, it failed - big time!
I am of the opinion that Patsy did not redress JonBenet in those size-12's.
Patsy admitted to buying the panties. She said she didn't know what happended to them. I think she wanted them to be part of the staging but she didn't know exactly what the police had on her - they were going through a ton of receipts. I think it's as simple as that...and the rest of the package went into her purse along with the duct tape and the rest of the rope.
Separate names with a comma.