Not only that, but Patsy lied to LE in Atlanta in 2000, in her interview where she said she gave the Bloomies to JonBenet to wear and JonBenet must have put them on herself; then that she put the Bloomies in JonBenet's drawer for her to use.
Then in 2002, through Lin Wood, the Ramseys turned over a package of Bloomies with six pair in it, sized 12-14, claiming it was the actual package in question. What?
But LE told Patsy in that 2002 interview they had removed 15 pair of panties from JonBenet's drawer, all size 4-6--no Bloomies size 12-14.
Jams said a retired cop working for the Ramseys as a PI went through the family's boxes of possessions brought from Boulder, looking for either the clothes the Ramseys turned over or the "mysterious" Santa doll--that story changed, too. In any case, that package wasn't in JonBenet's drawer for her to take out the Bloomies and put on, was it, if LE didn't recover it when they took the rest of the underwear.
And if you look at my avatar, you might see how ludicrous it is to imagine JonBenet putting on such panties herself and attempting to wear them. This model is a darn specific experiment; the dummy was created using measurements taken from a six year old girl approx. the same age, height, and weight as JonBenet. The Bloomies came from Bloomingdale, N.Y., inside the store.
Why would Patsy lie about that? She knew how important evidence was in finding the "intruder." She even know the underwear had been an issue in this case: no doubt she knew the DNA was her best "get out of jail free" card because Team Ramsey never quit talking about it, and it was allegedly from the underwear. Yet she deliberately misled LE. The Ramseys held onto that evidence for at least 3 to 4 years after it was "found" by their own PI.
That's withholding evidence in a murder case. What innocent parent does that?
The DNA could be contaminate. It's inarguable that DNA is so minute, the technology so new, no one can prove how or when those strands got on those clothes until the donor is found. They can't even prove if it was transmitted in saliva or mucous, because it is skin cells carried in either one, shed from the membranes that it travels through; but saliva and mucous don't have their own DNA.
Yes, of course it could be secondary or tertiary transfer. Statistics and "more likely" don't mean anything until it is determined who the donor is, because one occurance is still an occurance. If there is one occurance, then who can say there aren't many? In a case like this where Bode Tech obviously had a dog in the hunt for the "matching" unsourced DNA, obviously looking for the advertising money can't buy, and Lacy certainly wanted to find it, as well, how can that be trusted? The Bode Tech even said in her "demo" done with a reporter that she discarded DNA from the samples she extracted. What?! Yeah, she said EXACTLY that. So whose DNA did she discard? What criteria did she use to decide that? Obviously, she had to have something that ruled some in and some out: a target DNA?
Personally, I suspect someone pulled the longjohns and panties down and back up, leaving the DNA on them. It could have been JonBenet herself, because the few markers under her fingernails did match the fuller DNA profiles--or at least, that's what Lacy wants us to believe, but I haven't seen the reports myself.
They also could have been contaminated in the medical examiner's autopsy or in the lab by someone who processed them, handled them, pulling the waistbands to look at them, etc. and contaminated them.
Another possibility is that the paintbrush was contaminate and whoever handled the paintbrush tranferred the DNA when pulling the clothing back on. The "mixture" of that DNA in the blood in the panties would be explained that way--and that comes from Ollie Gray, who said as much on TV when discussing this "touch" DNA.
In reality, Bode Tech would never in a million years have revealed test results of evidence for an investigative office of the gov't. if Lacy hadn't set it all up and given permission for Bode's technician to do such an extensive, detailed, weeklong media blitz to herald the "discover" worldwide. For Bode's president to be putting out video claiming this DNA belonged to an intruder is so absurd, it really brings into question the lab's objectives and lack of credibility: it was not their job nor did they have the ability to say how that DNA got there.
Who in LE goes out of their way to break all investigative protocol and procedure in an unsolved murder case? Oh, yeah: biased, emotionally involved, incompetent Lacy.
This DNA is a red herring. As I've said, name who it belongs to, prove he at least knew of the family, was there that night, has no alibi, matches other evidence at the crime scene, and then convince me that Patsy would write a ransom note for him, lie to LE, obstruct the investigation, and help him get away with murdering her molested child.
That's what it will take for the DNA to change my mind.
