Patsy Ramsey

[Anti-K]

Good post UKGuy. Much to think about in what you say, and your intentional irony/sarcasm helps make the idea(s) clearer... you reminded me of something that has been on my mind lately when you said "Parts of the plan worked, others did not" - so yes, they had to improvise at various points in time (probably from the 911 call and all that happened after that)

So the current Question in my head right now is - do we have a good handle on specifically WHICH AREAS of the house could have been intentionally "contaminated" by the arrival of friends called after 911 call? We know from testimony that JF parked in the alleyway, looked in a doorway/window and then ran around to the front of the house. We are told that later "victim advocates" dashed about cleaning up, esp. fingerprint dust debris" and prepared some food for the gathered-party. We are told that PR collapsed in the "sunroom" crying unconsolably, even vomiting at times. And of course we know about the crime-scene contamination at the wine cellar before and when the body was found. Of all this "contamination of crime scene" if it was orchestrated, I just wonder which areas of the house were most contaminated by the "guests" - was it the kitchen? was it the sunroom? was it the hallway(s) between? was it near the foyer? (IS THE SOLARIUM on floor plan the same thing as the SUNROOM where PR spent her agonizing moments that morning? Where was the phone located where Det Arndt and JR waiting for the call from "kidnapper" - just questions Im asking. Because I have a feeling there would have been some overt attempts to corral guests and LEO to specific areas where "contamination: was PLANNED or at least hoped-for. JMO

Okay; let’s say that the Ramseys called people over so that they would contaminate specific areas.
These are the areas that would want contaminated: possible entry/exit points; jbr’s bedroom (this is where the fake kidnapper fake seized his victim); the area outside the wine cellar (the fake kidnapper assaulted his victim here) and the wine cellar.

The Ramseys somehow forgot that their fake kidnapper needed a way in/out (they told police all the doors were locked; they did not report the broken window) so it isn’t likely that they called people over to contaminate those areas.

White was in the bedroom, the basement and he opened the wine cellar door, and Fernie (iirc) was in the basement. I don’t recall anyone saying that they were directed to those areas, and, iirc, for the most part people were essentially confined to one area of the house.

The most troubling aspect of this area of inquiry is that the Ramseys called the police first. The police arrived first. The police could have, and probably should have prevented anyone else from entering the home. If the Ramseys were clever enough to think of calling over contaminators then surely they were clever enough to know that contaminating needed to be done before the police show up.

One can argue that calling friends first would make them look bad, but if they wanted friends as contaminators then they would have to bite the bullet and call them first. Besides, calling friends afterwards seems to have made them look bad, anyways.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Good post UKGuy. Much to think about in what you say, and your intentional irony/sarcasm helps make the idea(s) clearer... you reminded me of something that has been on my mind lately when you said "Parts of the plan worked, others did not" - so yes, they had to improvise at various points in time (probably from the 911 call and all that happened after that)

So the current Question in my head right now is - do we have a good handle on specifically WHICH AREAS of the house could have been intentionally "contaminated" by the arrival of friends called after 911 call? We know from testimony that JF parked in the alleyway, looked in a doorway/window and then ran around to the front of the house. We are told that later "victim advocates" dashed about cleaning up, esp. fingerprint dust debris" and prepared some food for the gathered-party. We are told that PR collapsed in the "sunroom" crying unconsolably, even vomiting at times. And of course we know about the crime-scene contamination at the wine cellar before and when the body was found. Of all this "contamination of crime scene" if it was orchestrated, I just wonder which areas of the house were most contaminated by the "guests" - was it the kitchen? was it the sunroom? was it the hallway(s) between? was it near the foyer? (IS THE SOLARIUM on floor plan the same thing as the SUNROOM where PR spent her agonizing moments that morning? Where was the phone located where Det Arndt and JR waiting for the call from "kidnapper" - just questions Im asking. Because I have a feeling there would have been some overt attempts to corral guests and LEO to specific areas where "contamination: was PLANNED or at least hoped-for. JMO

CorallaroC,
Yes, it was preplanned. Particularly the kitchen area, James Kolar thinks this was the primary crime-scene, so cleaning up here makes sense.

JR was likely improvising when he spun his tale regarding the broken window, when it was likely part of a prior staging, similary for the suitcase that JR says he CEO, brought down to the basement when he was undertaking his weekly housekeeping chores, forgetting to mention thats why they hired LHP!

Just think of all the foreign fibers the guests brought into the house, just what you want if you wish to make plausible claims regarding an intruder?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
So the R's were forensically aware where it mattered, they likely knew written text is ambiguous as direct evidence, that fiber evidence was similarly not conclusive, since they lived in the same house, yet IDI usually fail to mention, as Kolar has, how come a Foreign Faction enters a house kidnaps, sexually assaults, asphyxiates and applies blunt force to a childs skull without leaving any forensic evidence at any of the evidential locations, separated by time and space?*snip*

The note didn't state "We are a foreign faction". It stated "We are a group of individuals that represent [i.e speak for] a small foreign faction".

If one thinks about it, Patsy's cancer cells were like a foreign faction that invaded her body.

 

[Anti-K]

My $.02: INEPTITUDE, which, according to Merriam and Webster means "lack of skill or ability".

Enough reasons revealed over the years why skill or ability would have been lacking.

Ineptitude, lack of skill or ability on the part of BPD makes for a good excuse, but it brings up the question as to why anyone who accepts such explanation would then turn around and accept BPD’s interpretation of the evidence?

Regardless, this idea that BPD did not properly or fully investigate the Ramseys is a forum generated claim. BPD, and the DA’s office spent millions of dollars on an investigation that spanned years, and add to that the not insignificant effort expended by media and such; consider the hours spent, the distances traveled, the volume of people questioned, the pages and pages and pages of information generated; etc. The focus of all those resources? The Ramseys.

So, I think the argument that the Ramseys were not fully investigated is very weak, and not supported by anything outside of forum conjecture.
...

AK

 

[CorallaroC]

Ineptitude, lack of skill or ability on the part of BPD makes for a good excuse, but it brings up the question as to why anyone who accepts such explanation would then turn around and accept BPD’s interpretation of the evidence?

Regardless, this idea that BPD did not properly or fully investigate the Ramseys is a forum generated claim. BPD, and the DA’s office spent millions of dollars on an investigation that spanned years, and add to that the not insignificant effort expended by media and such; consider the hours spent, the distances traveled, the volume of people questioned, the pages and pages and pages of information generated; etc. The focus of all those resources? The Ramseys.

So, I think the argument that the Ramseys were not fully investigated is very weak, and not supported by anything outside of forum conjecture.
...

AK

AK, I disagree with your logic/thought process on these points:

1: "but it brings up the question as to why anyone who accepts such explanation would then turn around and accept BPD’s interpretation of the evidence?"
...........please dont be silly, you seem to be using typical "all-or-nothing thinking" to make your point, AK. I disagree with you.

2: Regardless, this idea that BPD did not properly or fully investigate the Ramseys is a forum generated claim. ............ No, I disagree with you AK. The "forums" are not to blame (or be credited with) the fact that the R defense attorneys successfully blocked BPD from obtaining necessary information during the investigation (such as basic interviews, medical records, phone records, and more).

3: the DA’s office spent millions of dollars on an investigation that spanned years, and add to that the not insignificant effort expended by media and such; consider the hours spent, the distances traveled, the volume of people questioned, the pages and pages and pages of information generated; etc. The focus of all those resources? The Ramseys ....... Again, AK, No! I disagree! Surely you are not trying to insinuate that few other potential suspects were investigated or little resources were spent on other POI's, my gosh, there were DOZENS of people under investigation (the number is published. was it 118 people cleared?), including the (not-so-mysterious) SANTA BEAR. Come'on!

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping on you AK, it's just hard for me to let some of your posts slide-by without proper challenge. I do try to keep an open mind when I read your posts, because you do seem to have a lot of knowledge about details of this case, even if you interpret them completely differently than I do. Unfortunately, at times, it appears to me that your interpretations/opinions come across as "agenda based" and not logical at all in light of known FACTS. sigh. JMO

 

[midwest mama]

AK, I disagree with your logic/thought process on these points:

1: but it brings up the question as to why anyone who accepts such explanation would then turn around and accept BPD’s interpretation of the evidence?
...........please dont be silly, you seem to be using typical "all-or-nothing thinking" to make your point, AK. I disagree with you.

2: Regardless, this idea that BPD did not properly or fully investigate the Ramseys is a forum generated claim. ............ No, I disagree with you AK. The "forums" are not to blame (or be credited with) the fact that the R defense attorneys successfully blocked BPD from obtaining necessary information during the investigation (such as basic interviews, medical records, phone records, and more).

3: the DA’s office spent millions of dollars on an investigation that spanned years, and add to that the not insignificant effort expended by media and such; consider the hours spent, the distances traveled, the volume of people questioned, the pages and pages and pages of information generated; etc. The focus of all those resources? The Ramseys ....... Again, AK, No! I disagree! Surely you are not trying to insinuate that few other potential suspects were investigated or little resources were spent on other POI's, my gosh, there were DOZENS of people under investigation (the number is published. was it 118 people cleared?), including the (not-so-mysterious) SANTA BEAR. Come'on!

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping on you AK, it's just hard for me to let some of your posts slide-by without proper challenge. I do try to keep an open mind when I read your posts, because you do seem to have a lot of knowledge about details of this case, even if you interpret them completely differently than I do. Unfortunately, at times, it appears to me that your interpretations/opinions come across as "agenda based" and not logical at all in light of known FACTS. sigh. JMO

BBM
Hi CorallaroC - In support of your post, I copied one of mine (below) posted on another thread: John Ramsey's Role. My recent post here lists "ability" as part of the description of the word INEPTITUDE. It is impossible to have the ABILITY to progress with an investigation of a POI if the suspect refuses to grant interviews, and/or they are blocked by legal processes initiated by their attorneys. I got the impression from Mark Beckner (stated in his Reddit interview) that BPD messed up early on by the way they handled the investigation at the crime scene and with regard to questioning the Ramseys. He wasn't the chief when the crime happened, so easier for him to pass blame, but from the very beginning BPD's hands got tied up because they weren't tough enough to stand up to the DA and the Ramsey minions. Maybe we could add GUTS to skill and ability, and redefine the word "ineptitude".

So, with regard to not collecting more handwriting samples from JR to use for comparison to the RN (ineptitude on the part of BPD), the ball got dropped on this part of investigating the R's, IMO. It doesn't make sense to me that they would back off and accept a declaration of JR's handwriting as "not a match", when it was Ramsey paid examiners who brought that early verdict in. IMO, ruling out JR was key in swaying BPD from suspecting him in the beginning to taking a closer look at Patsy. All too fishy for me, and, yes, I will admit to an agenda to have JR face up to further questioning and investigation by LE. Mostly because Burke refused to co-operate with a request for further questioning, and I think he did so because he has been brainwashed by JR and the legal team to do so, because of what he knows.

And, no one at BPD or in the DA's office seems to have the GUTS to keep pressing either one of the R's for more information.

Copied Post:
More Samples Requested?
Some interesting info from: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...rimer5_ce.html

Seems JR did not have to completely fulfill his role of supplying as many handwriting samples as were asked for from him:

There is some confusion about the total number of samples John provided. While the affidavit states he had already given three samples by early January, according to the 2/18/97 Denver Post, John was asked verbally by the BPD to submit a third handwriting sample in mid-February. According to the article, his attorneys said they needed something more substantial than a verbal request before they allowed him to oblige; it was apparently never pursued. To add to the confusion, John's attorney Bryan Morgan stated in the documentary that John gave two handwriting samples altogether, and Patsy, five.

It should be noted that Det. Linda Arndt reportedly handed over a copy of the ransom note to Lee Foreman of the Ramsey team the first week of January, so the Ramseys had access to the note prior to giving most of the handwriting samples.

Now, what does not make sense to me is why, once they had seen the ransom note, there are skids put on John giving extra samples requested by BPD, but Patsy went on to give more. And why, if Patsy had seen the writing, and had 'as many different writing styles as a sixth grader' (quoted elsewhere), would she have not tried her best for samples to appear completely different from resembling the note if she was concerned about trying to hide guilt?

 

[UKGuy]

Trace evidence, specifically, hairs, fibers and DNA, were found in incriminating locations – genital area, panties, ligatures and victim’s hands. So, it is factually incorrect to say that no forensic evidence (of an intruder) was left at “any of the evidential locations.”

To say that “no abductor” is going to do this or do that is mere Argument form Personal Incredulity. It is flawed reasoning. Just because you can’t think of a reason for a particular act does not mean that such a reason does not exist.
...

AK

Anti-K,
On another thread you tell us that you are a scientific skeptic, so patently you will be able to cite all the references to the forensic reports offering dna-profiles of the hair and DNA samples, detailing the type etc?

The fibers were alleged to have originated from both the parents, BR's touch-dna was found on JonBenet's pink-barbie nightgown deposited in the wine-cellar, including a blood-stain, nearly all the forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar crime-scene links directly to all three remaining Ramsey's!

So, it is factually incorrect to say that no forensic evidence (of an intruder) was left at “any of the evidential locations.”

Presumably, as a scientific skeptic, you will be in full possession of any forensic evidence, e.g. DNA profile, that can establish a link to this mythical intruder?

To say that “no abductor” is going to do this or do that is mere Argument form Personal Incredulity. It is flawed reasoning. Just because you can’t think of a reason for a particular act does not mean that such a reason does not exist.
...

This mythical intruder need not hang around and pen a ransom note, when he is going to phone the next day, or redress JonBenet, only to change his mind and leave her behind!

.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, I disagree with your logic/thought process on these points:

1: "but it brings up the question as to why anyone who accepts such explanation would then turn around and accept BPD’s interpretation of the evidence?"
...........please dont be silly, you seem to be using typical "all-or-nothing thinking" to make your point, AK. I disagree with you.

2: Regardless, this idea that BPD did not properly or fully investigate the Ramseys is a forum generated claim. ............ No, I disagree with you AK. The "forums" are not to blame (or be credited with) the fact that the R defense attorneys successfully blocked BPD from obtaining necessary information during the investigation (such as basic interviews, medical records, phone records, and more).

3: the DA’s office spent millions of dollars on an investigation that spanned years, and add to that the not insignificant effort expended by media and such; consider the hours spent, the distances traveled, the volume of people questioned, the pages and pages and pages of information generated; etc. The focus of all those resources? The Ramseys ....... Again, AK, No! I disagree! Surely you are not trying to insinuate that few other potential suspects were investigated or little resources were spent on other POI's, my gosh, there were DOZENS of people under investigation (the number is published. was it 118 people cleared?), including the (not-so-mysterious) SANTA BEAR. Come'on!

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping on you AK, it's just hard for me to let some of your posts slide-by without proper challenge. I do try to keep an open mind when I read your posts, because you do seem to have a lot of knowledge about details of this case, even if you interpret them completely differently than I do. Unfortunately, at times, it appears to me that your interpretations/opinions come across as "agenda based" and not logical at all in light of known FACTS. sigh. JMO

No, it doesn’t sound like you’re jumping on me (and, I don’t mind if you do). I don’t mind being criticized, as long as it’s my reasoning and not “me.” I make mistakes, sometimes I’m wrong.

1) I’m not stating a position; I’m asking a question. If one finds that BPD was inept, then how does one find their conclusions to be sound?

2) But, the claim that BPDM did not fully investigate the Ramseys is a forum generated claim. BPD does not say this, Thomas never said it, Kolar doesn’t say it; etc. Some difficulties with the investigation have been cited, but no one other than some forum posters say that the Ramsesy were not fully investigated. Also, note that when I talk about the Ramseys being investigated I include more than BPD – DA’s office, and media for example.

3) The FOCUS of the investigation and the bulk of the resources expended were expended on the Ramseys. I don’t think there is any way to reasonably argue otherwise.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
On another thread you tell us that you are a scientific skeptic, so patently you will be able to cite all the references to the forensic reports offering dna-profiles of the hair and DNA samples, detailing the type etc?

The fibers were alleged to have originated from both the parents, BR's touch-dna was found on JonBenet's pink-barbie nightgown deposited in the wine-cellar, including a blood-stain, nearly all the forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar crime-scene links directly to all three remaining Ramsey's!


Presumably, as a scientific skeptic, you will be in full possession of any forensic evidence, e.g. DNA profile, that can establish a link to this mythical intruder?


This mythical intruder need not hang around and pen a ransom note, when he is going to phone the next day, or redress JonBenet, only to change his mind and leave her behind!

.

I have never claimed to be a “scientific skeptic” and I have never used the term. I’m not ever sure that I know what you mean by it (I don’t care to know).

My sources are the same as everyone else’s.

Do you think, for example, that Kolar was lying when he described the unsourced DNA found in incriminating locations, or the unsourced fibers found in the victim’s genital area; etc?

Where are your sources? Can you demonstrate your “full possession” of forensic evidence; etc?

Good grief.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I’m not here to comfort you.

Just thought I'd give you a chance. Won't make that mistake again.

Who cares if they were subjected to analysis by a psychiatrist if you deny that behavioral evidence is, uh, evidence? And, how often do you think this sort of thing happens during an investigation?

Well, I thought LE had such things as forensic psychiatrists and the like. It makes sense that they'd at least CONSULT one on a case like this, if not set up an interview.

And I never said that behavioral evidence is not evidence. Frankly, the Rs behavior after the killing ALONE would get my attention!

Sorry, but the Ramseys were endlessly investigated by investigators and media and what was discovered is that they were loving and doting parents.

Even loving parents can kill. Sometimes they think killing the child IS out of love.

Don’t you like the evidence? Do you think we should ignore it just because it doesn’t suit you?

No, there are much BETTER reasons than that to ignore it.

Are you going to pull one of those “if only they looked deeper” cards?

You bet your *advertiser censored**!

Cuz, I’m pretty sure that went as deep as they can go.

Actually, Anti-K, standard procedure in cases like this is to arrest both parties and put them in different holding cells, then see which one breaks first. Certain things would be going deep then, I'd wager.

I don’t think they’d have to be psycho killers. I was borrowing the expression from your buddy Kane.

My "buddy?" I've never met him. But he probably has a pretty good handle on the situation, regardless.

Yes, well. I think you’re just making this up, that after they couldn’t find a pulse, breathing etc, they assumed she was dead.

What WOULD you assume if you couldn't find a pulse or breath on a limp body? That they were "pining for the fjords?" (Monty Python reference)

In pretty much all cases, even when death is a certainty, the immediate response is denial. People call for help.

They probably would have called for help, if it weren't for that one little problem.

 

[BBB167893]

Clear as mud. What other cases? How much forensic evidence did Westerfield leave behind in the Van Dam home? Are you actually going to tell me that in all cases, hairs, fibers and DNA are always found and that they are always found in large amounts? Really?

No, I'm not saying that. But to use the Van Dam case as a reference point (which I strongly suggest), Westerfield didn't leave much evidence in the home, but he was in and out like *snaps fingers* THAT (if he even had to go in). He wasn't writing crazy ransom notes and God-knows-what else for hours.

 

[BBB167893]

Really? Why do you think BPD chose not to do a thorough investigation?

Speaking for myself, I don't think CHOICE had much to do with it.

 

[BoldBear]

Anti-K,

Let me point you to Kolar's book if you'd like to read-up more on how badly this investigation was handled and how much more they knew should have been done. I can get you a list of other books on the topic if you haven't seen them. Maybe that would help?

Also, could someone please point me to where Kolar says that the crime occurred in the kitchen? I'd love to read that part. If it's in his book I must have missed it.

I'm still waiting for a used copy of DOI to arrive. I was hoping it would have arrived on my bday. Oh well. Maybe Monday.

I wish Dave's book would come out on Kindle, I'll just have to get a paper copy. eeew paper.

 

[UKGuy]

Anti-K,

Let me point you to Kolar's book if you'd like to read-up more on how badly this investigation was handled and how much more they knew should have been done. I can get you a list of other books on the topic if you haven't seen them. Maybe that would help?

Also, could someone please point me to where Kolar says that the crime occurred in the kitchen? I'd love to read that part. If it's in his book I must have missed it.

I'm still waiting for a used copy of DOI to arrive. I was hoping it would have arrived on my bday. Oh well. Maybe Monday.

I wish Dave's book would come out on Kindle, I'll just have to get a paper copy. eeew paper.

BoldBear,
BBM: You never missed it. Its in one of the interviews he did with Tricia. He thinks it all kicks off in the kitchen and ends down in the basement.

From his AMA interview he also states the paintbrush injuries are intentional and not staged. So if I believe what Beckner, Kolar and Meyer say, then JonBenet was sexually assaulted by a digit, and the broken paintbrush handle, i.e. a prolonged assault!

.

 

[UKGuy]

I have never claimed to be a “scientific skeptic” and I have never used the term. I’m not ever sure that I know what you mean by it (I don’t care to know).

My sources are the same as everyone else’s.

Do you think, for example, that Kolar was lying when he described the unsourced DNA found in incriminating locations, or the unsourced fibers found in the victim’s genital area; etc?

Where are your sources? Can you demonstrate your “full possession” of forensic evidence; etc?

Good grief.
...

AK

Anti-K,
So you have nothing to backup your claims regarding the mythical intruder, no citation regarding forensic profiles or scientific reports!

Why should members here take you seriously, you make claims based on an absence of evidence, pontificate about counterfactuals, have no cogent IDI theory, and have nothing constructive to offer in general.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Anti-K,

Let me point you to Kolar's book if you'd like to read-up more on how badly this investigation was handled and how much more they knew should have been done. I can get you a list of other books on the topic if you haven't seen them. Maybe that would help?

Also, could someone please point me to where Kolar says that the crime occurred in the kitchen? I'd love to read that part. If it's in his book I must have missed it.

I'm still waiting for a used copy of DOI to arrive. I was hoping it would have arrived on my bday. Oh well. Maybe Monday.

I wish Dave's book would come out on Kindle, I'll just have to get a paper copy. eeew paper.

There's more to DOI than meets the eye.

 

[cynic]

Also, could someone please point me to where Kolar says that the crime occurred in the kitchen? I'd love to read that part. If it's in his book I must have missed it.

Hey BoldBear,

Kolar didn’t delve into this in his book. He did, however, outline his theory on an episode of Tricia’s True Crime Radio back in August 4, 2013.
Also, he touches on the subject in his AMA…
"I believe it possible that it was the instrument used to deliver the blow to JBR’s head in the area of the kitchen."
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10352-James-Kolar-s-Q-amp-A-AMA-March-28-2015

The link to the radio show:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...rue-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern.mp3
(He gets to his theory at around 20 minutes.)

 

[ElleElle]

Hello,
I've watched some docs on this case lately (since probably 1998 or so).
I listened to Patsy's 911 call, and it seems like she is very shaken. I used to think she had something to do with this, but now I am not so sure anymore.
Kidnapping gone bad? What could of went wrong that she had to be killed?
Thanks

 

[Anti-K]

BoldBear,
BBM: You never missed it. Its in one of the interviews he did with Tricia. He thinks it all kicks off in the kitchen and ends down in the basement.

From his AMA interview he also states the paintbrush injuries are intentional and not staged. So if I believe what Beckner, Kolar and Meyer say, then JonBenet was sexually assaulted by a digit, and the broken paintbrush handle, i.e. a prolonged assault!

.

Thank you, BoldBear.

I have read Kolar (and, listened to him on tricia’s; and watched him on youtube, read his AMAA). I’ve read Thomas, and Douglas, and Whitson, and Schiller; etc. all the depositions and the interviews; etc. But, if you have something else that you would like to recommend, I might be interested.

I do understand that this was a troubled investigation and I know that Thomas and Kolar, etc have written about this in some detail; but, I don’t recall any of them – or, anyone associated with the investigation – saying that the Ramseys were not investigated extensively and in depth.

In his book, Kolar talks about a course of action that he thinks could bring this matter to a resolution but the only piece of investigative work that he seems to suggest is getting onto that “island of privacy (Specifically, I think, Burke’s medical records)”.

I don’t recall anything coming out of the “recent” cold case meeting suggesting that the Ramseys needed further investigating, or that they hadn’t been investigated enough.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

There's more to DOI than meets the eye.

My sources are the same as yours; my “forensic profiles” and “scientific reports” are the same as yours (and, everyone else’s). I figured if they’re good enough for you, they’re good enough for me.

For example, on p. 229 Kolar describes unsourced fibers that were “found on four items closely associated with the body of Jonbenet and implements used in her murder.” These are the brown, cotton fibers that may (or, may not) have come from a glove (or, gloves).

From Carnes: Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.)
Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)
Carnes http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

The unsourced, foreign, male DNA found in the victim’s panties commingled with her blood and accepted by CODIS as well as the matching tDNA found on the victim’s leggings is so well documented and accepted that I’m not going to bother sourcing it. Everyone know about this. Sure, there is disagreement over its importance and meaning but so far, despite effort, no innocent explanation for it has been found.

So, there you have it- using the same sources as YOU and EVERYONE else – trace evidence found in incriminating locations of the exact type that one should expect to find if an intruder had committed this crime.
.

I have several IDI theories and I have posted them and links to them more than once. And, quite recently! For Detective Pinkie and for Andreww.
...

AK