Surely the truth must be this...

[BrendaStar]

Does anyone know for sure where the size 12 panties that were found on JonBenet came from? Did they come from the same dresser of JonBenet's as the pajamas that were found by her side?

I believe the size 12 panties were stored in a package in a dresser where the other panties were kept. They were bought on a trip to New York that Patsy and JBR took for JBR's cousin, so I doubt if Karr had anything to do with them.

 

[BBB167893]

"I'm not willing to close my eyes to anything that would change my feelings on this case, but that just hasn't happened yet."

Jeana, if you have any questions, I'm willing to provide answers if I can.

But scientifically, there is no reason for the DNA to be in such crummy shape if it was left that night. I've asked around.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

"I'm not willing to close my eyes to anything that would change my feelings on this case, but that just hasn't happened yet."

Jeana, if you have any questions, I'm willing to provide answers if I can.

But scientifically, there is no reason for the DNA to be in such crummy shape if it was left that night. I've asked around.

Thanks Dave!!

 

[BBB167893]

Anyone who keeps it friendly, like you tend to do, I have no problem at all.

You're quite welcome.

 

[newtv]

Hey, don't call me Shirley.

I made a similar point on another thread, but I just want to put this out there for some discussion, as I believe it addresses some of the core case issues, and it's about time we stopped going around in circles...

If the case DNA had always been considered proof of an intruder, there is no way the Ramseys would have been under suspicion for the last ten years, weird and obstructive behavior or not.

Yet they have. I would therefore suggest that either the case DNA sample is tainted and/or inadequate for a 'beyond reasonable doubt' comparison; or the authorities believe that the case DNA is unlikely to be the DNA of the killer.

If there had been clear and unequivocal evidence of an intruder, there is no way the Ramseys would have been under suspicion for the last ten years, weird and obstructive behavior or not.

There wasn't.

The case has never added up. Whether people want to believe it or not, RDI remains the least confusing option.

Unless JonBenet was really killed by a devil doll (hey, why did Patsy get rid of the Mytwinn so quickly?) the prospects for IDI have never looked good.

I thought they were no longer suspects since 2003 and in some ways before-certainly thats how its been presented..

 

[Tricia]

How do you think this happened? Surely not from a sneeze from Thailand.

Yes Jeana, it was most likely from a sneeze in the manufacturing of the panties.

I only know this because Mary Lacy's right hand man, Tom Bennet has stated so publicly. I don't have time to pull up the article now but I will.

The DNA itself is consistant with coming from minute droplets associated with a sneeze.

It is not blood, (the blood in the underpants is JBR's from the abuse with the paint brush handle) it is not flesh, it is consistant with a sneeze.

As far as what is under her fingernails...again, not blood, not flesh, but one tiny, degraded, very old partial SKIN CELL. Not even big enough for a full DNA marker.

I would suggest, without question, that you and I both have more foreign DNA under our fingernails and in our underpants than JBR did.

The DNA is a red herring. It will never be matched.

We have the best evidence left by the killer. A 2 1/2 page ransom note. That should be the focus.

Even Mary Lacy admitted (FINALLY) that the DNA could be an "artifact."

When you understand the DNA is minute, degraded, and not anything near flesh or blood, you will see the DNA is only a red herring.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yes Jeana, it was most likely from a sneeze in the manufacturing of the panties.

I only know this because Mary Lacy's right hand man, Tom Bennet has stated so publicly. I don't have time to pull up the article now but I will.

The DNA itself is consistant with coming from minute droplets associated with a sneeze.

It is not blood, (the blood in the underpants is JBR's from the abuse with the paint brush handle) it is not flesh, it is consistant with a sneeze.

As far as what is under her fingernails...again, not blood, not flesh, but one tiny, degraded, very old partial SKIN CELL. Not even big enough for a full DNA marker.

I would suggest, without question, that you and I both have more foreign DNA under our fingernails and in our underpants than JBR did.

The DNA is a red herring. It will never be matched.

We have the best evidence left by the killer. A 2 1/2 page ransom note. That should be the focus.

Even Mary Lacy admitted (FINALLY) that the DNA could be an "artifact."

When you understand the DNA is minute, degraded, and not anything near flesh or blood, you will see the DNA is only a red herring.

Its driving me nuts!!!! I need a break! LOL I don't think I can take anymore!!!!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Anyone who keeps it friendly, like you tend to do, I have no problem at all.

You're quite welcome.

Well, I think I'm beginning to believe ya'll that this is definately NOT a DNA case. They say that most cases are not, so its not too hard to believe. Still can't get from where I am to anyone in the family doing this. I need some motive.

 

[tumble]

Well, I think I'm beginning to believe ya'll that this is definately NOT a DNA case. They say that most cases are not, so its not too hard to believe. Still can't get from where I am to anyone in the family doing this. I need some motive.

Yes, the motive... up i the blue.
I think thats why many think it was an accident followed by cover up, but even that is hard to swallow. Must be some special accident.

 

[BBB167893]

"Still can't get from where I am to anyone in the family doing this. I need some motive."

I could give you some, but they would all be spitballing (my little term).

 

[Jeana (DP)]

"Still can't get from where I am to anyone in the family doing this. I need some motive."

I could give you some, but they would all be spitballing (my little term).

I can deal with that!!

 

[southcitymom]

To this day, I can't come up with a satisfactory motive in the Darlie Routier case, yet the vast majority of the evidence points to Darlie as the murder.


It's the same here. Motive - I honestly don't know - but the vast majority of the evidence points to a Ramsey.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

To this day, I can't come up with a satisfactory motive in the Darlie Routier case, yet the vast majority of the evidence points to Darlie as the murder.


It's the same here. Motive - I honestly don't know - but the vast majority of the evidence points to a Ramsey.

See, I completely disagree with this. I don't want to hijack the thread by talking about the "Routier" case, but there is just so much evidence that its ridiculous.

 

[southcitymom]

See, I completely disagree with this. I don't want to hijack the thread by talking about the "Routier" case, but there is just so much evidence that its ridiculous.

We'll agree to disagree. I too think there's a lot of clear cut evidence in the Routier case, but there's a lot of clear cut evidence in this one as well. JMHO.

 

[SewingDeb]

Does anyone know for sure where the size 12 panties that were found on JonBenet came from? Did they come from the same dresser of JonBenet's as the pajamas that were found by her side?

If not, what if the size 12 panties belonged to the 12 year old girl that JMK said he was being investigated for murder of. What if the DNA on these panties belongs to one of the 12-year old girls parents who could have sneezed on them when folding them and putting them away.

I've read that they belonged to JonBenet's cousin, but I'm not sure where that came from. Same scenario though...if they belong to someone else, the DNA could be totally unrelated, especially since it was degraded to some degree.

 

[LaMer]

I've read that they belonged to JonBenet's cousin, but I'm not sure where that came from. Same scenario though...if they belong to someone else, the DNA could be totally unrelated, especially since it was degraded to some degree.

Sewing Deb, I recall a connection to a cousin. Didn't Patsy buy them in NY for the cousin, but for some reason, they were still in the Ramsey house? Or was it JonBenet wanted the panties just her cousins, even tho they were not the right size?

A better memory than mine will know :banghead: lol

 

[Jeana (DP)]

We'll agree to disagree. I too think there's a lot of clear cut evidence in the Routier case, but there's a lot of clear cut evidence in this one as well. JMHO.

Can you tell me what it is?

 

[LaMer]

Yes Jeana, it was most likely from a sneeze in the manufacturing of the panties.

I only know this because Mary Lacy's right hand man, Tom Bennet has stated so publicly. I don't have time to pull up the article now but I will.

The DNA itself is consistant with coming from minute droplets associated with a sneeze.

It is not blood, (the blood in the underpants is JBR's from the abuse with the paint brush handle) it is not flesh, it is consistant with a sneeze.

As far as what is under her fingernails...again, not blood, not flesh, but one tiny, degraded, very old partial SKIN CELL. Not even big enough for a full DNA marker.

I would suggest, without question, that you and I both have more foreign DNA under our fingernails and in our underpants than JBR did.

The DNA is a red herring. It will never be matched.

We have the best evidence left by the killer. A 2 1/2 page ransom note. That should be the focus.

Even Mary Lacy admitted (FINALLY) that the DNA could be an "artifact."

When you understand the DNA is minute, degraded, and not anything near flesh or blood, you will see the DNA is only a red herring.

Thank You Trisha,

AHHH-clears up the source of the sample under the fingernail for me: Somewhere along the way, I missed that little fact, skin cell, and a very old tiny partial skin cell to boot! I figured it had to be from 'skin', but wasn't sure.

"one tiny, degraded, very old partial SKIN CELL"

 

[aspidistra]

Sewing Deb, I recall a connection to a cousin. Didn't Patsy buy them in NY for the cousin, but for some reason, they were still in the Ramsey house? Or was it JonBenet wanted the panties just her cousins, even tho they were not the right size?

A better memory than mine will know :banghead: lol

The package of size 12 Bloomies was in JBR's underwear drawer according to Karr's confession. They were in fact a gift for a cousin. He did not know that and assumed the dresser contained only JBR's things. He took one and put it in his coat, while waiting for them to come home and exploring the house. When he dressed the body he realized they were too big and he didn't have time to go back and get one that was the right size. He expressed a lot of distress that someone would put someone else's underwear in JBR's drawer. This sounds quite believable. It's a detail none of us ever thought of when analyzing the case. A mother would never put the wrong size underwear on her child. A man might make that mistake because they were new and folded and he wouldn't have unfolded it and put it on her till time was too rushed to go back and get another one. Besides he was panicking at that point. Why the new pair? Because he wanted to take the one she was wearing as a souvenir. There is one missing, from what I've seen on the web.

I know he has been cleared but his accounts are very believable and the real killer could have told him this scenario. That's my current hypothesis. He wants to take the blame for the real killer because of his own psychological problems.

 

[southcitymom]

Can you tell me what it is?

Yes, but it will have to be later because I'm going on a date! :blushing: :dance:

I'll try to get together a posting about what I think is clear in this case. My process with this case has been very similar to my process with the Routier case - which I know you know well - I have read many of your postings in connection with Darlie's case. I was on the fence there for a long long time!

Have a great evening.