Lies point us to the truth #2

[T rex]

Where did the rest of the size 12 bloomies run off to? Why was JB dressed in this size? More than likely because they were handy. Mom and son spent parts of the day together down in the basement as the story goes. They also spent a good deal of time in the basement Christmas night as well as the early morning hours of the 26th. Their dna links them both to the longjohns and the Barbie nightgown.

I always thought the size 12's could have been what was used to wipe down JBR. No one seems to know where they went, probably like UKGuy said above, someone snaked them out of the house.

 

[OddOneOut]

I always thought the size 12's could have been what was used to wipe down JBR. No one seems to know where they went, probably like UKGuy said above, someone snaked them out of the house.

Maybe used by an intruder who tried to wipe his DNA off of JB. He then took them with him when he left.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I always thought the size 12's could have been what was used to wipe down JBR. No one seems to know where they went, probably like UKGuy said above, someone snaked them out of the house.

According to Lin Wood, they were found among the packed up belongings of JonBenet in Atlanta sometime in or before 2003, and handed over to the BPD.

 

[UKGuy]

According to Lin Wood, they were found among the packed up belongings of JonBenet in Atlanta sometime in or before 2003, and handed over to the BPD.

FergusMcDuck:
The belongings of JonBenet, really? BPD Detectives searched not only JonBenet's bedroom, but the whole house looking for underwear, all they found were size-4 or size-6 underwear.

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview , Excerpt

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you

2 aware that these were the size of panties

3 that she was wearing, and this has been

4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they

5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of

6 that?

7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.

8 Q. And how did you become aware of

9 that?

10 A. Something I read, I am sure.

11 Q. And I will just state a fact

12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties

13 taken out of, by the police, out of

14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is

15 that where she kept -

16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

17 Q. -- where you were describing that

18 they were just put in that drawer?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

Who handed them over to the BPD and was the package opened or unopened, i.e. containing seven or six pairs of size-12 Bloomingdales?


Why wait so long to hand them over? Patsy would know from her exchange with the BPD detectives that the size-12s were missing forensic material.


Possibly the parents had to wait until Bloomingdales restocked them?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck:
The belongings of JonBenet, really? BPD Detectives searched not only JonBenet's bedroom, but the whole house looking for underwear, all they found were size-4 or size-6 underwear.

When did they search, and how thorough?

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview , Excerpt




Who handed them over to the BPD and was the package opened or unopened, i.e. containing seven or six pairs of size-12 Bloomingdales?

Unknown. In the Daily Camera article, it's just said that the BPD had them in their possession.

Why wait so long to hand them over? Patsy would know from her exchange with the BPD detectives that the size-12s were missing forensic material.

Presumably it happened sometime between 2000 (when the Ramseys first were asked about them) and 2003 (when Lin Wood claimed they had been found and were in the possession of the BPD).

Possibly the parents had to wait until Bloomingdales restocked them?

I'm certain that if the handed over underwear were years younger, it would be trivially easy to confirm.

 

[UKGuy]

When did they search, and how thorough?



Unknown. In the Daily Camera article, it's just said that the BPD had them in their possession.



Presumably it happened sometime between 2000 (when the Ramseys first were asked about them) and 2003 (when Lin Wood claimed they had been found and were in the possession of the BPD).



I'm certain that if the handed over underwear were years younger, it would be trivially easy to confirm.

FergusMcDuck,
Depends on what was handed over? Apply some reasoning and a pinch of salt: Patsy says she placed the size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer. Presumably JonBenet opened the pack and selected a pair?

So did she bin the plastic container and put the rest into her drawer?

Please explain the procedure to trivially confirm a particular product purchased in Bloomingdales is years younger than their current sales line?

Assuming you are correct, as per Patsy, who would have removed the size-12's from JonBenet's underwear drawer, as BPD stated NO size-12 Bloomingdales were found in JonBenet's underwear drawer?

.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Nope, they needed to get the Stines on board, they knew stuff that could sink the R's, possibly via DS's friendship with BR?

UKGuy,
Great point!

The overkill aspect might reflect Patsy's state of mind if it was her that whacked and asphyxiated JonBenet so to enact staging.

It is a possibility.

Sure, JR was making certain he was showered clean. There his shirt fibers on JonBenet on JonBenet's genitalia. They simply should not be there, particularly in the wine-cellar!

I will argue this point. Since it was common for JB to call someone to wipe her; this may have happened during the White’s Christmas party. Not saying it did, merely a possibility.

Most likely Patsy detested John given his repeated demands on her? If JonBenet was playing Daddy's Girl with Patsy's tacit permission, then she likely disliked him even more, public displays of mutual consolation was something they could never stage.

Agreed. His lack of support for her while she was sick probably didn’t sit well with her either. Besides JR was notorious for his affairs.

He does not want linked to any of the staged artifacts, quite possibly someone has told him to minimize is forensic links?

Wondering who those someone’s were?

Big mystery, her sister Pamela probably bailed out with them when she did her Supermarket Dive through the house?

Thats just the dna that has been released into the public domain. What's missing is which particular Ramsey DNA was found on JonBenet, and where, regardless of its origin being cited as environmental.

Great stuff. Great point is the particular Ramsey dna found on JB. How about when JR picked JB up and carried her upstairs. This proves not all is known.

Let's put it this way, if BR is innocent, then once JR leaves us I reckon BR will do one of these Oprah style confessionals, he will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

According to his interview with Dr. Phil he seemed convinced there is no evidence linking him to the crime. I would almost say his mind has been wiped. But then, he did have to build up to that cry.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I always thought the size 12's could have been what was used to wipe down JBR. No one seems to know where they went, probably like UKGuy said above, someone snaked them out of the house.

Perhaps stuffed the inside an American Girl doll. After all PP did remove them.

FYI:
749 15th St. is for sale again. Asking price 7,000,000.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,
Depends on what was handed over? Apply some reasoning and a pinch of salt: Patsy says she placed the size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer. Presumably JonBenet opened the pack and selected a pair?

So did she bin the plastic container and put the rest into her drawer?

Please explain the procedure to trivially confirm a particular product purchased in Bloomingdales is years younger than their current sales line?

Since at least four years had passed between buying the original set and any potential replacement, there would likely be differences in style, not to mention the purchase and packaging could be dated.

Assuming you are correct, as per Patsy, who would have removed the size-12's from JonBenet's underwear drawer, as BPD stated NO size-12 Bloomingdales were found in JonBenet's underwear drawer?

Or the BPD missed the packages when they searched. Or Patsy misremembered where she put them. Plenty of options. Quite frankly, there would be no reason for anyone to hide the packages since they would have no forensic value.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Jonbenet would have had to cut the plastic from their container in order to open them. Although PR stated she put them in JB drawer I would assume she opened them and took them out of the case.This post is from Jayelles @ FFJ.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
Great point!


It is a possibility.

I will argue this point. Since it was common for JB to call someone to wipe her; this may have happened during the White’s Christmas party. Not saying it did, merely a possibility.


Agreed. His lack of support for her while she was sick probably didn’t sit well with her either. Besides JR was notorious for his affairs.


Wondering who those someone’s were?



Great stuff. Great point is the particular Ramsey dna found on JB. How about when JR picked JB up and carried her upstairs. This proves not all is known.


According to his interview with Dr. Phil he seemed convinced there is no evidence linking him to the crime. I would almost say his mind has been wiped. But then, he did have to build up to that cry.

Rain on my Parade:

Wondering who those someone’s were?

Has to be some attorney or high level BPD Officer since it is patently self-evident John has gone out of his way to minimize forensic transfer, whereas Patsy has not!

Also John at a later date in a display of heroic ad hoc rationalization explained how he got lawyered up from the start by saying he was given pro bono advice by friend on walks about the surrounding area.

Great stuff. Great point is the particular Ramsey dna found on JB. How about when JR picked JB up and carried her upstairs. This proves not all is known.

We all expect JonBenet to have deposits of familial dna, either touch-dna or dna, e.g. saliva, blood, or tears, etc, on her body.

What we do not know is which dna is located where on JonBenet. Really all we have is enough dna evidence to speak for the Ramsey case regarding an intruder.

Any Ramsey dna found on those size-12s is suspect, more so any found on her thighs, etc.

So dna relating to Patsy, John or Burke might not have made it into the final report as the focus was on an intruder?

Yes, patently John's dna should be all over JonBenet, transfer being via his hands alone as he was not wearing gloves when he found JonBenet, and he removed the blanket!

According to his interview with Dr. Phil he seemed convinced there is no evidence linking him to the crime.

Crazy thinking eh? We can demonstrate all three Ramsey were involved in postmortem staging, that's before we ask about the pineapple snack, the size-12's, or JonBenet walking into the house on returning from the White's, etc.

The case is definitely RDI, if we can we rule out BDI, then I reckon the case is JDI via a classic case of child abuse.

I always remember Patsy saying how angry John was on hearing JonBenet was performing at some pageant in Las Vegas, as he was aware of the negative reputation Las Vegas had.

I think that kind of statement is called whitewashing these days?

Yet, John bankrolled Patsy and Nedra to fund JonBenet's pageant career, he knew what was going on he would have seen the invoices and the charges on the bank statements, all run up by Patsy or Nedra.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Jonbenet would have had to cut the plastic from their container in order to open them. Although PR stated she put them in JB drawer I would assume she opened them and took them out of the case.This post is from Jayelles @ FFJ.
View attachment 407161

Rain on my Parade,
Why would JonBenet bother with the size-12s if they were simply a carbon copy of the Bloomingdales size-6 that Patsy said she purchased for JonBenet?

Even if she did open the container after she put them them she would have been clever enough to work out the were no good as they would just FALL DOWN?

My money is on John or Burke dressing JonBenet in those size-12s. The big question is how would John know anything about the size-12s, which were likely stored in Patsy's room, prior to gift-wrapping?

We can fit BR into having prior knowledge of the size-12s as he is allegedly on record stating he searched the basement on Christmas Day afternoon, q.v. Kolar.

So unless the parents have fitted BR up, knowing he would face no sanctions due to his age, as Patsy took the rap for him by stating she PEEKED at some gifts, then there is his penknife and footprint present at the crime-scene, no smoking gun, but BDI is currently the best fit for the available forensic evidence?

BTW Patsy peeking at some gifts prompts: how would she have known who to address which wrapped gift to?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Since at least four years had passed between buying the original set and any potential replacement, there would likely be differences in style, not to mention the purchase and packaging could be dated.



Or the BPD missed the packages when they searched. Or Patsy misremembered where she put them. Plenty of options. Quite frankly, there would be no reason for anyone to hide the packages since they would have no forensic value.

FergusMcDuck,

Since at least four years had passed between buying the original set and any potential replacement, there would likely be differences in style, not to mention the purchase and packaging could be dated.

Curiously BPD have never released any details regarding the size-6 Bloomingdales found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, similarly for the belatedly returned size-12 Bloomingdales.

Apparently there are no receipts for either the original size-6 or size-12 Bloomingdales, purchased on Patsy's New York trip.

Also the Ramsey's likely held a Bloomingdale's account or Patsy paid by credit card, etc. Again no details have been made public.

As Rain on my Parade suggests Patsy might have simply opened the pack of size-12s and deposited the contents directly into JonBenet's drawer?

So the packaging and barcoded tag may not have been available to BPD investigators?

That leaves the underwear style and colorway as the only means to identify purchase timeline for the size-12s?

This assumes there was indeed such a change, clued up members might be able to confirm any such changes, say from 2007 onwards?

I reckon BPD are sitting on telling forensic evidence, as relating to JonBenet's underwear, and that this is why they have never told us much about this aspect of the Ramsey House Search.

Or the BPD missed the packages when they searched.

Not accurate, the size-12s returned might represent the residue spirited out of the house during the postmortem period

Or Patsy misremembered where she put them.

Yes, Patsy's memory is questionable, as is her account.

Plenty of options. Quite frankly, there would be no reason for anyone to hide the packages since they would have no forensic value.

Not accurate. If JonBenet handled the size-12s, her touch-dna may have transferred, not only confirming Patsy's account but implying JonBenet might have redressed herself in the size-12s?

If someone else handled the size-12s, then their touch dna will be on the them, including that of the fabled Latin-American factory handler.

Meaning the idea that the mixed dna found on JonBenet's size-12s was that of a factory packer and JonBenet's could be tested!

So the size-12's do actually have some forensic value, even if only to show a different factory packer's touch-dna was present on the size-12's returned by the Ramsey's!

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I reckon BPD are sitting on telling forensic evidence, as relating to JonBenet's underwear, and that this is why they have never told us much about this aspect of the Ramsey House Search.

Or there was nothing incriminating about the underwear, which is why they haven't been mentioned at all since. I think the early, massive amounts of leaking from the BPD and the DAO have given people a skewed view of what info actually gets released.

Not accurate. If JonBenet handled the size-12s, her touch-dna may have transferred, not only confirming Patsy's account but implying JonBenet might have redressed herself in the size-12s?

If someone else handled the size-12s, then their touch dna will be on the them, including that of the fabled Latin-American factory handler.

Meaning the idea that the mixed dna found on JonBenet's size-12s was that of a factory packer and JonBenet's could be tested!

So the size-12's do actually have some forensic value, even if only to show a different factory packer's touch-dna was present on the size-12's returned by the Ramsey's!

Really? That's what the Ramseys would have reasoned?

"OK, in ten years there'll be new DNA science that might find traces of factory workers that we have no way of knowing would be present on the pair of underwear she's already wearing, thus giving us a potential scapegoat, so we'd better hide the rest, since future tech will find factory worker DNA on those as well."

The question isn't what forensic value they had, it's what the Ramseys would have thought they had. If they weren't used in the crime? They would have no need to hide them away, since they wouldn't know UM1 would be in JonBenet's underwear. And if they were somehow used in the crime? Then it doesn't make sense to remove them and leave the pair JonBenet was wearing.

 

[UKGuy]

Or there was nothing incriminating about the underwear, which is why they haven't been mentioned at all since. I think the early, massive amounts of leaking from the BPD and the DAO have given people a skewed view of what info actually gets released.



Really? That's what the Ramseys would have reasoned?

"OK, in ten years there'll be new DNA science that might find traces of factory workers that we have no way of knowing would be present on the pair of underwear she's already wearing, thus giving us a potential scapegoat, so we'd better hide the rest, since future tech will find factory worker DNA on those as well."

The question isn't what forensic value they had, it's what the Ramseys would have thought they had. If they weren't used in the crime? They would have no need to hide them away, since they wouldn't know UM1 would be in JonBenet's underwear. And if they were somehow used in the crime? Then it doesn't make sense to remove them and leave the pair JonBenet was wearing.

FergusMcDuck,

The question isn't what forensic value they had, it's what the Ramseys would have thought they had.

Well the Ramsey's patently thought JonBenet's missing pink pajama bottoms and her missing size-6 underwear worn to the White's Christmas Party should be vanished, precisely because they held forensic value, i.e. negative.

Since the size-12s placed on JonBenet came from a set of size-12s that were likely handled by the Ramseys, could be they simply thought it was good insurance to make them vanish just like her pajama bottoms and size-6 underwear?

They would have no need to hide them away, since they wouldn't know UM1 would be in JonBenet's underwear.

The Ramsey concern would not be any unknown male dna, but that of any Ramsey dna deposited on any one of the remaining pairs of the size-12's, thereby placing them provisionally at the crime-scene.

And if they were somehow used in the crime? Then it doesn't make sense to remove them and leave the pair JonBenet was wearing.

Sure and this is why Patsy's account is self-defeating, i.e. if the case is RDI then why did Patsy not make sure there were size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer so to match her account?

Why would the intruder take JonBenet's pink pajama bottoms, worn size-6 underwear, and the remaining size-12s away with him and leave JonBenet behind?

Then it doesn't make sense to remove them and leave the pair JonBenet was wearing.

Sure, why does the intruder need to redress JonBenet at all. Why not just leave her naked from the waist down, the intruder would know his ghastly assault would become evident during the autopsy?

If Patsy did not remove the size-12s and the Intruder never removed the size-12s as there was no motive, i.e. he had left his dna calling card already, then who is left to blame for removing the size-12s?

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Well the Ramsey's patently thought JonBenet's missing pink pajama bottoms and her missing size-6 underwear worn to the White's Christmas Party should be vanished, precisely because they held forensic value, i.e. negative.

The panties she wore at the Whites were likely the same as the ones she died in. They were stained with blood and urine after all. Size 6 underwear could be the ones Tom Haney asked Patsy about, lying on the floor of JonBenet's room. Probably discarded when she changed before leaving for the Whites. I've never heard that the garments in question were actually missing.

Since the size-12s placed on JonBenet came from a set of size-12s that were likely handled by the Ramseys, could be they simply thought it was good insurance to make them vanish just like her pajama bottoms and size-6 underwear?

But in your theory they put one of the pairs on her. Wouldn't those be equally handled by a Ramsey, and 10000% more incriminating?

The Ramsey concern would not be any unknown male dna, but that of any Ramsey dna deposited on any one of the remaining pairs of the size-12's, thereby placing them provisionally at the crime-scene.

So not only would the Ramseys have future knowledge of touch DNA testing becoming possible a decade later, but they wouldn't have any such qualms about the pair being actually on their dead daughter?

Sure and this is why Patsy's account is self-defeating, i.e. if the case is RDI then why did Patsy not make sure there were size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer so to match her account?

The explanation for that should be obvious.

Why would the intruder take JonBenet's pink pajama bottoms, worn size-6 underwear, and the remaining size-12s away with him and leave JonBenet behind?

Again, do we know that these garments are actually missing?

Sure, why does the intruder need to redress JonBenet at all. Why not just leave her naked from the waist down, the intruder would know his ghastly assault would become evident during the autopsy?

I mean, by redress we just mean tugging the panties and longjohns back up again. He never needed to take them off completely.

If Patsy did not remove the size-12s and the Intruder never removed the size-12s as there was no motive, i.e. he had left his dna calling card already, then who is left to blame for removing the size-12s?

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was just the BPD being the BPD, packing up the panties and sending them to the Ramseys thinking they weren't Jonbenet's due to their size.

 

[UKGuy]

The panties she wore at the Whites were likely the same as the ones she died in. They were stained with blood and urine after all. Size 6 underwear could be the ones Tom Haney asked Patsy about, lying on the floor of JonBenet's room. Probably discarded when she changed before leaving for the Whites. I've never heard that the garments in question were actually missing.



But in your theory they put one of the pairs on her. Wouldn't those be equally handled by a Ramsey, and 10000% more incriminating?



So not only would the Ramseys have future knowledge of touch DNA testing becoming possible a decade later, but they wouldn't have any such qualms about the pair being actually on their dead daughter?



The explanation for that should be obvious.



Again, do we know that these garments are actually missing?



I mean, by redress we just mean tugging the panties and longjohns back up again. He never needed to take them off completely.



Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was just the BPD being the BPD, packing up the panties and sending them to the Ramseys thinking they weren't Jonbenet's due to their size.

FergusMcDuck,

I've never heard that the garments in question were actually missing.

I can reccomend JonBenet by Steve Thomas and Jame's Kolar's Foreign Faction, also you can compare and contrast the search lists released by BPD.

As I mentioned before, this is why the BPD have not released the full details regarding what underwear they took out of the Ramsey household, other than to qualify that it was size-6 and size-4.

No brand names, or numbers so we can match how many Bloomingdales size-6 or what Day Of The Week they were, e.g. Wednesday, or is the latter missing?

On Christmas Eve JonBenet wore a Pink pajama top and Pink pajama bottoms to bed. On Christmas Day, as seen in the Crime-Scene photographs, the pink pajama top can be seen on JonBenet's bed but her pink pajama bottoms are missing as are her size-6 underwear worn to the White's.

If she had worn the size-12s to the White's Christmas Party then these should have vanished in the same manner her pink pajama bottoms vanished, i.e. due to forensic evidence transfer, blood, semen, saliva, whatever?

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

I can reccomend JonBenet by Steve Thomas and Jame's Kolar's Foreign Faction, also you can compare and contrast the search lists released by BPD.

I must have missed the references to the pink pajama bottoms being lost in Thomas and Kolar. Do you have a quote from either of them?

As I mentioned before, this is why the BPD have not released the full details regarding what underwear they took out of the Ramsey household, other than to qualify that it was size-6 and size-4.

No brand names, or numbers so we can match how many Bloomingdales size-6 or what Day Of The Week they were, e.g. Wednesday, or is the latter missing?

Sure, it's fine to speculate.

On Christmas Eve JonBenet wore a Pink pajama top and Pink pajama bottoms to bed. On Christmas Day, as seen in the Crime-Scene photographs, the pink pajama top can be seen on JonBenet's bed but her pink pajama bottoms are missing as are her size-6 underwear worn to the White's.

If she had worn the size-12s to the White's Christmas Party then these should have vanished in the same manner her pink pajama bottoms vanished, i.e. due to forensic evidence transfer, blood, semen, saliva, whatever?

Well, no. That does not follow. The killer obviously pulled down her underwear to assault her, so what would possibly be there that wouldn't be on the hypothetically new underwear? Either she was alive or he didn't bother cleaning her that well, since there was both blood and urine in the underwear, which kind of defeats the purpose of changing them.

 

[UKGuy]

I must have missed the references to the pink pajama bottoms being lost in Thomas and Kolar. Do you have a quote from either of them?



Sure, it's fine to speculate.



Well, no. That does not follow. The killer obviously pulled down her underwear to assault her, so what would possibly be there that wouldn't be on the hypothetically new underwear? Either she was alive or he didn't bother cleaning her that well, since there was both blood and urine in the underwear, which kind of defeats the purpose of changing them.

FergusMcDuck,
The intruder also wiped JonBenet down.

Consider:
January 30, 1997 Search Warrant
755 15th Street, Boulder, Colorado

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

Also the Intruder sexually assaulted JonBenet.

Consider:
January 30, 1997 Search Warrant
755 15th Street, Boulder, Colorado

Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair found on the outside of the shirt

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

BPD suggested The Dark Fibers were consistent with that of John's Israeli manufactured shirt.

JonBenet Christmas Day morning, wearing pink pajama top and bottoms

From Lou Smit's Presentation
Crime Scene Photo #002
JonBenet's Bed with pink top

From Lou Smit's Presentation
Crime Scene Photo #003
JonBenet's Bed Sheet with pink top

There is NO evidence to suggest JonBenet wore the size-12s to the White's Party, they would be way too large for the black pants JonBenet did wear. You can see them in the next photograph.

From Lou Smit's Presentation
Crime Scene Photo #005
JonBenet's Bedroom

Use your favorite search engine to look for "JonBenet's Last Picture/Photograph" as released by John. JonBenet was dressed ready for the White's Christmas Party.


.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Has to be some attorney or high level BPD Officer since it is patently self-evident John has gone out of his way to minimize forensic transfer, whereas Patsy has not!

UKGuy,
Wonder why he did not advise his wife of such? Instead he handed BPD her notepad.

What we do not know is which dna is located where on JonBenet. Really all we have is enough dna evidence to speak for the Ramsey case regarding an intruder.

We do have from Bode Technology PR and BR dna found to be on the Barbie nightgown and the long Johns. Why both of them?

Yes, patently John's dna should be all over JonBenet, transfer being via his hands alone as he was not wearing gloves when he found JonBenet, and he removed the blanket!

Yes, indeed! As you said we do not have all dna results in this case. Somebody is hiding something. BPD?