Blue Fibers

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Possibly, but maybe the shower is still wet or his towel is damp etc, will Patsy say he did? Too many variables to cover for something that cannot be linked with JonBenet's death.

If the shower was actually wet, John's explanation would of course make sense. Do you know if it is mentioned anywhere that the shower was in fact wet?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Nuisanceposter,


If that is correct then it requires asking just who would know that?

Good question. I went looking for the actual post PagingDrDetect wrote that I was referring to - it's here (it's a long one, but full of info that really has me wondering): http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41768&page=3

Although Jayelles experiment is absolutely marvelous, LE would have been way ahead of us on this. They knew how ridiculously large those panties were, they couldn't find the rest of the large panties in the house, and they found partially opened Christmas presents in the basement, some of which were right in the same room JBR was found in. If you read the interview transcript with Patsy about the underwear very carefully you can tell by some of the questions they ask that they figured all this out themselves already... one of the questions was did Patsy notice when she took off JBR's black pants to get her ready for bed that her panties came off with them.

This just makes me more furious with the DA because BPD must have known all this, yet the DA thwarted them... and now the new DA does. No wonder so many BPD were angry enough to resign.

We don't know if there ever were any size 4/6 bloomies at all... LE isn't saying and neither is Patsy because she conveniently "can't remember" if she bought one package of them for JBR in size 4/6 and another package in size 12/14 for the niece, Jenny, to send to her as a gift. But I believe there WAS a package of 4/6 bloomies that Patsy purchased. In the other thread about these huge panties I said this...

In John Ramsey's 1998 interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane, Smit says this...

13 LOU SMIT: You notice how the packages seem
14 to be partially opened. Can you explain this?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I can't.

There were presents found in the basement that were apparently meant for Christmas gifts to be exchanged when they went to Michigan and for other people to be sent out before they left. Patsy had stated that she was trying to get together presents to be sent out to other people before they left on their trip and that she did that in the basement. Some of those presents were in the room where JBR was found. Patsy also in her interviews had said that she bought the size 12/14 bloomies as a Christmas gift for her niece, Jenny, and apparently, that was a present to be sent out before they left on their trip... so it stands to reason that the package of the large panties would be in the basement in a package meant to be sent to Jenny.

I always thought it odd that the size 12/14 panties would ever have been put into JBR's panty drawer. Patsy also said that she couldn't remember whether or not she bought a package of the bloomies in size 12/14 for Jenny ONLY or if she ALSO bought a package of 4/6 ones for JBR. I think she did buy both.

The housekeeper remembers seeing a package of the bloomies in JBR's panty drawer, but I think those were the size 4/6 ones meant for JBR, and the size 12/14 package was in the basement in a package ready to be sent to Jenny for Christmas. Patsy was the one who was wrapping the gifts in the basement and would have known that the size 12/14 bloomies were there. That's why I think Smit brought up the fact that one or more of the presents in the basement were partially opened. I think part of the reason to use the size 12/14 panties was because they were there in the basement where the staging took place.

It's important that Patsy not state that there were two packages of bloomies and one of them was in JBR's drawer because an intruder wanting to put a different pair of panties on JBR would not have used panties that came out of a present in the basement... an intruder would have no idea that childrens panties were in a wrapped package in the basement. Only PATSY knew there was childrens panties in a wrapped present in the basement.

Smit doesn't say that those presents were partially wrapped, he says they were partially OPENED. No one puts wrapping paper on a package that isn't already closed up, so these presents weren't just partially wrapped... they were wrapped and then partially unwrapped and partially OPENED to get something out.

I think the reason that Patsy "doesn't remember" whether or not she bought two packages of the panties because if she said she remembered buying one package for JBR and one for her older niece, Jenny, it would be deduced by LE that what the housekeeper saw in the JBR's panty drawer were the size 4/6 panties purchased for JBR and the size 12/14 panties came out of one of those presents in the basement... pointing right at Patsy. Patsy was the only one who knew for certain where those size 12/14 bloomies were, and I think they were in the basement in one of those partially opened presents Smit mentioned.

In another post in that same thread I said that I believed the biggest reason that the 12/14 panties were chosen is because they were pristine... they were in a sealed plastic package with no Ramsey DNA on them. Both Patsy and John were questioned about gloves, so LE must have figured that gloves were worn for the re-dressing as they lack ANY Ramsey DNA (other than JBR herself who was wearing them). They also lack any DNA from ANYONE except for a tiny bit of degraded DNA that probably came from the garment factory that made them (otherwise it wouldn't be so degraded).

Something else I just realized about gloves... there's no point in wearing gloves that aren't also pristine without any Ramsey DNA on them, so using gardening or driving gloves wouldn't be such a good idea. Where would one get a pair of pristine gloves in the house? Think back and recall that it was thought there was a smell in the bathroom of hair coloring chemicals, and Patsy said she thought she had dyed her hair that day. Guess what also comes in a package of hair coloring? PLASTIC GLOVES... nice fresh pristine plastic gloves free of Ramsey DNA. I've colored my own hair for years in my own bathroom, and while the smell lingers for a few hours, it wouldn't be noticed when LE got to the house if Patsy dyed her hair sometime on Christmas Day. It also would be a dead give-away if an open box of hair coloring was found with everything still in it except for the gloves. Therefore, I think the plastic gloves were worn by whoever staged the body and the hair coloring chemicals were dumped down the sink... then the box, the empty chemical bottle and whatever else came out of the hair coloring package had to be hidden or destroyed so no one would notice the empty package and empty bottle of dye in the trash without the dye covered plastic gloves.

I have no problem believing that Patsy bought her niece those bloomies as a Christmas gift because it would make a nice stocking stuffer type gift... she probably bought other things for her niece as well. I can't even count all the panties, socks and nightgowns my aunts used to buy me for Christmas when I was a kid! It just wasn't the ONLY thing they bought to give me... just included as part of whatever else they bought.

I'd be willing to bet that one of the Christmas packages that was taken in the search was partially opened and contained other gifts for Jenny... minus the bloomies.

 

[UKGuy]

Good question. I went looking for the actual post PagingDrDetect wrote that I was referring to

Nuisanceposter,

Yes that is an interesting explanation. Lets run over it.

Assumption .1) Patsy purchased a size 4/6 Bloomingdales pack for JonBenet?

Assumption .2) Patsy purchased a size-12 Bloomingdales pack for her niece, Jenny?

Assumption .3) Patsy placed the size 4/6 Bloomingdales in the top drawer of JonBenet's bedroom dresser?

Assumption .4) Patsy placed the size-12 Bloomingdales somewhere other than Jonbenet's bedroom?

Assumption .5) Patsy placed the size-12 Bloomingdales in the basement for Xmas gift-wrapping?

Assumption .6) Linda Hoffman Pugh mistakes the size 4/6 underwear for the size-12's?

If 1.) is correct then BPD will have found six pairs of size 4/6 Bloomingdales underwear, and most likely a missing Wednesday pair?

Also I'll assume the price for the each of the packs of underwear would differ so the BPD would be able compare any charge-card or credit-card purchases made at Bloomingdales?

If 4.) and 5.) are correct what packages is Lou Smit referring to? I assume its not a package containing six Bloomingdales size-12's.

Also when being interviewed Patsy stated that JonBenet had opened the size-12 Bloomingdales, so would this not render them unsuitable as a xmas-gift?

87
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

Now

so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game.

mmm my understanding is that JonBenet's panty drawer was in her bathroom?


.

 

[rashomon]

Very interesting post by PDrD.
I'm still trying to get the complete picture of that confusing (but crucially important!) underwear issue, so bear with me folks if I have to ask again:

- Have the remaining size 12 bloomies with the other days of the week on them (minus Wednesday) been found in the Ramsey home? If yes, where?

-Have any size 4/6 bloomies with weekday prints on them been found in the Ramsey home? TIA for replying.

 

[angelwngs]

Very interesting post by PDrD.
I'm still trying to get the complete picture of that confusing (but crucially important!) underwear issue, so bear with me folks if I have to ask again:

- Have the remaining size 12 bloomies with the other days of the week on them (minus Wednesday) been found in the Ramsey home? If yes, where?

-Have any size 4/6 bloomies with weekday prints on them been found in the Ramsey home? TIA for replying.

My understanding is that the remaining size 12 bloomies were sent to Boulder from Atlanta, well after the move to Atlanta. I think it was said that they were 'found' in a box that was moved from Boulder, but there is speculation that the possibility exists that a new set of bloomies was purchased, the "Wednesday" bloomies removed and the rest sent to Bloulder LE. If memory serves the other size 4/6 bloomies were taken in the 7 bloomies taken in the search warrant (is that the correct original number of bloomies seized???).

 

[UKGuy]

My understanding is that the remaining size 12 bloomies were sent to Boulder from Atlanta, well after the move to Atlanta. I think it was said that they were 'found' in a box that was moved from Boulder, but there is speculation that the possibility exists that a new set of bloomies was purchased, the "Wednesday" bloomies removed and the rest sent to Bloulder LE. If memory serves the other size 4/6 bloomies were taken in the 7 bloomies taken in the search warrant (is that the correct original number of bloomies seized???).

angelwngs,

If memory serves the other size 4/6 bloomies were taken in the 7 bloomies taken in the search warrant (is that the correct original number of bloomies seized???).

Only the BPD should know what is correct since the warrants did not include either the size or manufacturer of the underwear itemized on the search warrants.



.

 

[JMO8778]

It may be contradictory from what was said before because it's CURRENT. They were unable to do any fiber testing in which a match was made because they had to wait until the Ramsey's coughed up those items requiring testing in order to make a match. Until the proper items of clothing were forked over by the Ramseys LE could only SPECULATE as to what items of clothing they may match.

The whole premise for the 2000 interviews was to question the Ramseys on what NEW and definitive information had been obtained. If that NEW information contradicts previous information that they were only able to SPECULATE about, is it not obvious which information is more accurate?

Additionally, despite knowing that Woody was not going to allow his clients to answer any questions regarding the fibers, they asked those questions anyway solely for the record... they wanted to go on record as to new and definitive information they obtained regarding fibers that had been discovered. The fact that no information was forthcoming about dark blue fibers that may have matched JR's robe or some Ramsey towel or other piece of Ramsey cloth tells me that at the time of the 2000 interviews either

a) there were no dark blue fibers that may have matched some piece of Ramsey cloth, or
b) what was originally thought to be dark blue fibers found on JBR or on the clothing she was wearing are in fact the black fibers which were matched to JR's Israeli made shirt, or
c) the dark blue fibers were matched to some other piece of Ramsey cloth previously, and their existence wasn't mentioned in the 2000 interviews because it had already been established previously that dark blue fibers had definitively matched some other piece of Ramsey cloth (however, since this was never mentioned in previous interviews with the Ramseys I'm inclined to believe that there are no dark blue fibers that match any piece of Ramsey cloth).

IF there are any dark blue fibers that may or may not match JR's robe or some other Ramsey piece of cloth, they are DIFFERENT from the black fibers that match JR's Israeli made shirt as it has been established in the 2000 Ramsey interviews that black fibers matching JR's Israeli made shirt were found on JBR and/or the clothing her body was found wearing. This is a matter of FACT and was explicitly established as a matter of FACT in the 2000 interviews.

I was thinking,I think JB being wiped with a shirt would likely mean she and the perp were not anywhere near a bathroom where a towel would most likely be handy,or even a bedroom for that matter,since the bedrooms also had bathrooms.I think the perp used whatever was handy out of convenience.

 

[UKGuy]

I was thinking,I think JB being wiped with a shirt would likely mean she and the perp were not anywhere near a bathroom where a towel would most likely be handy,or even a bedroom for that matter,since the bedrooms also had bathrooms.I think the perp used whatever was handy out of convenience.

JMO8778,

Yes others have thought similarly e.g. black shirt used in the basement.

Assuming Coroner Meyer's autopsy statement regarding JonBenet being wiped down is correct, then she was wiped down after being redressed and wetting her underwear. Both place this last in the timeline, so assuming it occurred in the basement, who is going to run upstairs to fetch Johns shirt, then all the way back down again, when other suitable items will either be to hand or in the kitchen area e.g. kitchen roll.



.

 

[Eagle1]

We're pretty much unanimous that the parents are somehow involved in all this, just not to what degree.

Separating fact from supposition as much as we can, let's remember there COULD have been a similar shirt or other item owned by the killer, or JR would surely have been arrested. Bungling as they were, maybe deliberate for some reason (suggested by French not opening the "stuck" door, etc.) other PD's all over the country would have butted in, if the shirt fibers thing was proveable. Boulder couldn't bungle TOO much without arousing suspicion of the whole nation.

Other items have also been suggested as "consistent with", I believe, like a cloth in JR's golf bag, his bathrobe, and some other things.

If we want to seem to be strong and professional sleuths, shouldn't we be cool and unemotional like our real counterparts? Just conversation. We haven't had as many posts the last two or three days, it seems, but there's still Sunday afternoon.

 

[JBean]

What I don't understand is why these fibers seem to be so incriminating. It is reasonable to think that JBR came into contact with JR all night long. It is reasonable that she had her own hands all over this shirt. it is also reasonable that she touched her privates with those very same hands at any time during the night or when in bed.
Even after being wiped down there would easily be fibers, left behind on JBR.
Why doesn't it make sense that the shirt fibers came from JBR's very own hands after holding JR's arm while being carried or coming into contact with him at any time during the evening? We know she was not bathed that night after the party.
If the fibers were from something that JR put on AFTER going home and AFTER putting JBR to bed, I would see the problem. But since he wore the shirt that night, the fibers could have so easily made there way into her pants by way of JBR's own hands.

Gosh, I have long hair that was forever in my kids hands. I m sure if there pants were checked they would find my hair in there when they were little. Little ones often have their hands in their pants. Well for that matter, older ones do too. lol.

I know Im must be missing something, but I just don't know what it is. thanks.

 

[UKGuy]

What I don't understand is why these fibers seem to be so incriminating. It is reasonable to think that JBR came into contact with JR all night long. It is reasonable that she had her own hands all over this shirt. it is also reasonable that she touched her privates with those very same hands at any time during the night or when in bed.
Even after being wiped down there would easily be fibers, left behind on JBR.
Why doesn't it make sense that the shirt fibers came from JBR's very own hands after holding JR's arm while being carried or coming into contact with him at any time during the evening? We know she was not bathed that night after the party.
If the fibers were from something that JR put on AFTER going home and AFTER putting JBR to bed, I would see the problem. But since he wore the shirt that night, the fibers could have so easily made there way into her pants by way of JBR's own hands.

Gosh, I have long hair that was forever in my kids hands. I m sure if there pants were checked they would find my hair in there when they were little. Little ones often have their hands in their pants. Well for that matter, older ones do too. lol.

I know Im must be missing something, but I just don't know what it is. thanks.

JBean,

What I don't understand is why these fibers seem to be so incriminating.

They are not incriminating, no Ramsey would ever be convicted soley on the basis of fiber evidence.

But if you analyse the Ramsey statements they gave during interviews and on the day of the 911 call, you will find they state that John did not undress JonBenet, and that Patsy had not been down to the basement xmas night or the following morning.

Both John and Patsy's fibers were discovered at the crime-scene, and not as in blown-by-the-wind instances either. In Patsy's case the fibers from her jacket were embedded in the garrote knotting and on the duct-tape placed on JonBenet's mouth. Whilst fibers from John's shirt were alleged to have been recovered from JonBenets underwear and her genitalia. This after she had been wiped down!

Those three locations are unlikely to arise as the result of an environmental accident, or transference from JonBenet to said items, since in two cases it occurred after her death, and in the third probably similar.

So its safe to conclude that both parents are linked to the crime-scene in a manner no intruder has been.

imo the intruder and toilet rage theories are wholly inconsistent, which is understandable given that according to the police most of the information in the public domain is incorrect.

JonBenet's death was not only staged it was also covered up after the event, with the media being employed to promote bogus theories, this strategy has been successful.



.

 

[JMO8778]

When something bad happens, in which you are involved, would your not "feel dirty", whether you are trying to rid yourself of literal dirt/fibers/etc or not, would you not WANT to shower??? It was "symbolic" cleansing I assume, but I remember being under tremendous stress each time I returned home from the hospital, desperately wanting a shower, following my mother having a grand mal seizure, and her being hospitalized when she discovered she had a brain tumor. It was a form of therapy in a sense, a time to regroup in a few moments of private.

PR not getting a shower doesn't add up if she was involved. Could she have gotten a shower in the middle of the night instead and simply redressed in the same clothes as the night before to explain away the fibers from the clothes JBR had on when found. Could she have planned to throw herself on JBR's body and 'pray over her' to 'contaminate' her own clothing then???

I would think that she would in the least have been crying, so maybe that's what happened,as it was said she did have fresh makeup on.

 

[JBean]

JBean,


They are not incriminating, no Ramsey would ever be convicted soley on the basis of fiber evidence.

But if you analyse the Ramsey statements they gave during interviews and on the day of the 911 call, you will find they state that John did not undress JonBenet, and that Patsy had not been down to the basement xmas night or the following morning.

Both John and Patsy's fibers were discovered at the crime-scene, and not as in blown-by-the-wind instances either. In Patsy's case the fibers from her jacket were embedded in the garrote knotting and on the duct-tape placed on JonBenet's mouth. Whilst fibers from John's shirt were alleged to have been recovered from JonBenets underwear and her genitalia. This after she had been wiped down!

Those three locations are unlikely to arise as the result of an environmental accident, or transference from JonBenet to said items, since in two cases it occurred after her death, and in the third probably similar.

So its safe to conclude that both parents are linked to the crime-scene in a manner no intruder has been.

imo the intruder and toilet rage theories are wholly inconsistent, which is understandable given that according to the police most of the information in the public domain is incorrect.

JonBenet's death was not only staged it was also covered up after the event, with the media being employed to promote bogus theories, this strategy has been successful.



.

Thanks UKGuy but that information has been posted over and over but it does not answer my question,my apologies for being unclear.. I was speaking specifically about JR's shirt fibers being found in JBR's privates and why most here find that to be so damning.

 

[BBB167893]

What I don't understand is why these fibers seem to be so incriminating.

I'd say UKGuy

It is reasonable to think that JBR came into contact with JR all night long. It is reasonable that she had her own hands all over this shirt. it is also reasonable that she touched her privates with those very same hands at any time during the night or when in bed.

Except that, as far as we know, the underwear she had on that night were not the ones she was found in, which were more than likely put on after she was unconscious or dead.

If the fibers were from something that JR put on AFTER going home and AFTER putting JBR to bed, I would see the problem. But since he wore the shirt that night, the fibers could have so easily made there way into her pants by way of JBR's own hands.

But isn't the reverse also true?

I was speaking specifically about JR's shirt fibers being found in JBR's privates and why most here find that to be so damning.

Well, JBean, I'd answer that, but the LAST time you and I went there, we wound up right where we started.

 

[JBean]

I'd say UKGuy



Except that, as far as we know, the underwear she had on that night were not the ones she was found in, which were more than likely put on after she was unconscious or dead.



But isn't the reverse also true?



Well, JBean, I'd answer that, but the LAST time you and I went there, we wound up right where we started.

Thanks SDave...I don't remember going around with you regarding the fibers from JR's shirt and their ultimate destination of JBR's privates? my apologies if that is the case. I truly don't recall that conversation, but I do not doubt you.
I am also sorry Dave, I still cannot follow the logic as to why the fibers from JR's shirt wouldn't have gone from JBR's hands to her own private parts.

 

[UKGuy]

I still cannot follow the logic as to why the fibers from JR's shirt wouldn't have gone from JBR's hands to her own private parts.

JBean,

In a court case this would be the defense mounted by the Ramsey attorneys.

Also we do not know if there any other similar fibers anywhere else on JonBenet's body, if not, then that they only appear on JonBenet's genitalia and size-12 underwear is relevant!

Regardless of how those fibers came to rest in JonBenet's private-parts, they link John Ramsey to the crime-scene.

Also by implication Patsy's or Burke's fibers should also be found in or around JonBenet's private-parts?



.

 

[JBean]

JBean,

In a court case this would be the defense mounted by the Ramsey attorneys.

Yes of course an atty would offer an alternative explanation for the JR fibers.

Also we do not know if there any other similar fibers anywhere else on JonBenet's body, if not, then that they only appear on JonBenet's genitalia and size-12 underwear is relevant!

You are right, we do not know.

Regardless of how those fibers came to rest in JonBenet's private-parts, they link John Ramsey to the crime-scene.

They link JBR as to having had contact with his daughter.

Also by implication Patsy's or Burke's fibers should also be found in or around JonBenet's private-parts?

Entirely possible to have found them there, but they didn't.

I have read several posts that say there are only one or two explanantions for the fibers from JR's shirt being found on JBR's genitalia. I just do not think that is an accurate statement.

 

[sandraladeda]

All of this fiber discussion begs the question: Where are the fibers from the intruder?

 

[UKGuy]

They link JBR as to having had contact with his daughter.

JBean,
Exactly! Whether the contact was natural and legal or not, as in the last person to have contact with a dead victim is linked to the victim, the fibers link John Ramsey to JonBenet's corpse

I have read several posts that say there are only one or two explanantions for the fibers from JR's shirt being found on JBR's genitalia. I just do not think that is an accurate statement.

I agree, this is why John Ramsey would never have been convicted on the basis of the fiber evidence.

Entirely possible to have found them there, but they didn't.

This is precisely what makes the fibers from John Ramsey appear relevant. According to Ramsey statements Patsy undressed JonBenet, so there is plenty scope there for fiber transfer. Also since JonBenet was wiped down, as per Coroner Meyer's autopsy, then why should Patsy's or Burke's fibers be magically removed and just leave those from John's shirt?



.

 

[JBean]

JBean,
Exactly! Whether the contact was natural and legal or not, as in the last person to have contact with a dead victim is linked to the victim, the fibers link John Ramsey to JonBenet's corpse


I agree, this is why John Ramsey would never have been convicted on the basis of the fiber evidence.


This is precisely what makes the fibers from John Ramsey appear relevant. According to Ramsey statements Patsy undressed JonBenet, so there is plenty scope there for fiber transfer. Also since JonBenet was wiped down, as per Coroner Meyer's autopsy, then why should Patsy's or Burke's fibers be magically removed and just leave those from John's shirt?



.

I agree he had contact, but not ncessarily the last one to have contact. I don't think you can draw that conclusion. It is certainly a possibility, but not an absolute. I still maintain that it is equally as likely that the fibers were deposited there by JBR herself. Like I said, my boys could probably have found my hair in their pants but not my husbands. But doesn't mean I was the last one to hold them. Who knows when those fibers could have been picked up on her hands. Was it after she ate at the party and she touched JR with sticky hands, thre hereself? Little ones have their hands in their pants a lot.She probably wiped herself after [otty if nothing else and could have deposited fibers then. She was wiped down but perhaps not completely. But I don't think PR's or BR's fibers would or should necessarily have been found there..at all.
All I mean is, of all the evidence, these fibers are the most meaningless to me, as there are other totally reasonable ways for the fibers to get there. Which brings me back to why I posted the question why this is such complellig evidence to some.
Thanks for your respnonse UKG. I appreciate it.