The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Dynamic88]

Dynamic88,

Patsy Atlanta Interview, Excerpt

So Patsy is told no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, read it all here:http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Patsy probably knows or guesses Burke or John redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, as she read about the size-12's in one of the tabloids, so she has to invent some legend to account for the size-12's?

.

There's no argument that the police told her no size 12s were found. I'm just saying we don't need to take everything the police say as gospel truth. They are allowed to lie during interrogation and sometimes do. But that's just a possibility.

More importantly, Patsy knows whether or not she put the size 12s in the underwear drawer. If she didn't, she knows the police didn't find any in the drawer. So the question is why would she lie, knowing the police know it's a lie? Do you figure she wanted the police to believe the "intruder" took away all the remaining 12s?

She doesn't need to provide an account for the 12s. She can simply deny knowledge of how JonBenet came to be wearing them.

The bit about buying them at Bloomingdales in NY is almost certainly true as there were, iirc, 3 other women on the shopping trip. It wouldn't do to deny buying them if one of the other women could recall Patsy buying them. It's not a given that one of the other women remembers specifically what Patsy bought, but one never knows what will be recalled. Patsy couldn't run the risk of denying buying them since the police might already have spoken to the other women on the trip.

 

[Dynamic88]

But then we have to ask ourselves, what need did Patsy have to turn in the package of Bloomi's sans the Wednsday pair if LE had already found them in the drawer or the basement? This alone says LE never found them in the house.

It's good thinking, and you may well be right. But, then if the Ramseys believed, falsely, that no 12s were found they'd have the same incentive to "find" the package as they would have if it were true that none were found. For those who think there is something fishy about them "finding" the package years later, belief in what the police told them is just as important as the truth of what the police told them. But this isn't an important point in itself. All I'm saying is we can't take every police statement at face value.

The fact that the police said none were found doesn't mean none were found.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

There's no argument that the police told her no size 12s were found. I'm just saying we don't need to take everything the police say as gospel truth. They are allowed to lie during interrogation and sometimes do. But that's just a possibility.

More importantly, Patsy knows whether or not she put the size 12s in the underwear drawer. If she didn't, she knows the police didn't find any in the drawer. So the question is why would she lie, knowing the police know it's a lie? Do you figure she wanted the police to believe the "intruder" took away all the remaining 12s?

She doesn't need to provide an account for the 12s. She can simply deny knowledge of how JonBenet came to be wearing them.

The bit about buying them at Bloomingdales in NY is almost certainly true as there were, iirc, 3 other women on the shopping trip. It wouldn't do to deny buying them if one of the other women could recall Patsy buying them. It's not a given that one of the other women remembers specifically what Patsy bought, but one never knows what will be recalled. Patsy couldn't run the risk of denying buying them since the police might already have spoken to the other women on the trip.

The questioning UKGuy quoted was being done by Mike Kane -- not a policeman. This has really been researched and discussed to death in past threads (forgive me for being too busy/lazy to look it up for you right now). While the police are allowed to "lie" in order to get a response, a lawyer -- as an "officer of the court" -- is not. I think it falls under what they call "deontological ethics," meaning that they are required to not misrepresent a fact of which they are aware (along with other ethical responsibilities and obligations). If you ever notice an attorney give testimony in court, you'll notice they are not required to take an oath to tell the truth. That's because, as an "officer of the court," they are expected to tell the truth at all times (I know, we could go on and on about that one, but that is the assumption) -- at least in their dealings with respect to legal matters.

If Kane states as a fact that there was nothing but size 4 or 6 panties found in JonBenet's panty drawer, you can believe that that is all that was found. Here again is his statements:

Q.(by Mike Kane) And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept -
A. (Patsy Ramsey) Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. -- where you were describing that they were just put in that drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay?
​

 

[UKGuy]

There's no argument that the police told her no size 12s were found. I'm just saying we don't need to take everything the police say as gospel truth. They are allowed to lie during interrogation and sometimes do. But that's just a possibility.

More importantly, Patsy knows whether or not she put the size 12s in the underwear drawer. If she didn't, she knows the police didn't find any in the drawer. So the question is why would she lie, knowing the police know it's a lie? Do you figure she wanted the police to believe the "intruder" took away all the remaining 12s?

She doesn't need to provide an account for the 12s. She can simply deny knowledge of how JonBenet came to be wearing them.

The bit about buying them at Bloomingdales in NY is almost certainly true as there were, iirc, 3 other women on the shopping trip. It wouldn't do to deny buying them if one of the other women could recall Patsy buying them. It's not a given that one of the other women remembers specifically what Patsy bought, but one never knows what will be recalled. Patsy couldn't run the risk of denying buying them since the police might already have spoken to the other women on the trip.

Dynamic88,
This all sounds like a Robin Williams sketch. So Patsy did purchase the size-12's and the police know this but want to lie to her about not finding them, why so?

Theoretically this means BPD have three sets of size-12's in their evidence cage in some Colorado State Evidence Depository, two purchased by Patsy on her trip to New York, i.e. one for her niece Jenny, and one for JonBenet, q.v. BPD interview, and one handed in by the R's legal representative.

I'm assuming Patsy's account regarding the size-12's is an ad-hoc explanation to account for JonBenet wearing the size-12's. One fact missing is where they were sourced from : in the basement or upstairs in some bedroom?

.

 

[Dynamic88]

Dynamic88,
This all sounds like a Robin Williams sketch. So Patsy did purchase the size-12's and the police know this but want to lie to her about not finding them, why so?

Theoretically this means BPD have three sets of size-12's in their evidence cage in some Colorado State Evidence Depository, two purchased by Patsy on her trip to New York, i.e. one for her niece Jenny, and one for JonBenet, q.v. BPD interview, and one handed in by the R's legal representative.

I'm assuming Patsy's account regarding the size-12's is an ad-hoc explanation to account for JonBenet wearing the size-12's. One fact missing is where they were sourced from : in the basement or upstairs in some bedroom?

.

That the police lied is only a possibility, not a given. Why so? Standard technique. Try to make the person being interviewed change their story. Try to trip them up.

Why would Patsy need to supply a reason for JBR wearing size 12s? She denies noticing anything unusual when she put the long johns on JBR (that's her claim). She doesn't actually know how JBR came to be wearing the size 12s, though she claims that they were in the underwear drawer for JBR to wear as she pleased. If this were not true there is still no reason for Patsy to provide a plausible explanation for JBR wearing 12s. Again, the important thing is that if Patsy were making up an ad hoc reason for JBR wearing size 12s, she certainly wouldn't claim to have placed the size 12s in the underwear drawer if she had not actually done so. In that event she would know the police didn't (couldn't) find any other size 12s in the drawer.

 

[Dynamic88]

(bbm)
The questioning UKGuy quoted was being done by Mike Kane -- not a policeman. This has really been researched and discussed to death in past threads (forgive me for being too busy/lazy to look it up for you right now). While the police are allowed to "lie" in order to get a response, a lawyer -- as an "officer of the court" -- is not. I think it falls under what they call "deontological ethics," meaning that they are required to not misrepresent a fact of which they are aware (along with other ethical responsibilities and obligations). If you ever notice an attorney give testimony in court, you'll notice they are not required to take an oath to tell the truth. That's because, as an "officer of the court," they are expected to tell the truth at all times (I know, we could go on and on about that one, but that is the assumption) -- at least in their dealings with respect to legal matters.

If Kane states as a fact that there was nothing but size 4 or 6 panties found in JonBenet's panty drawer, you can believe that that is all that was found. Here again is his statements:

Q.(by Mike Kane) And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept -
A. (Patsy Ramsey) Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. -- where you were describing that they were just put in that drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay?
​

Thank you for correcting me. That was very interesting. I'm satisfied that Mike Kane did not lie about not finding size 12s in the drawer.

I still hold that it makes no sense for Patsy to lie about putting them in the drawer, as an ad hoc explanation for JBR wearing size 12s, given that if Patsy didn't put them in the drawer she already knows the police did not and could not find any size 12s there.

So, if Patsy is lying, she's telling a lie that the police know is a lie even before she finishes telling it, or at least that the story doesn't fit with what was found. I think she's smarter than that.

The other possibility is that she really did put the package in the drawer and the killer and/or redresser took the entire package out of the drawer.

 

[DeDee]

Dynamic88,

Patsy Atlanta Interview, Excerpt

So Patsy is told no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, read it all here:http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Patsy probably knows or guesses Burke or John redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, as she read about the size-12's in one of the tabloids, so she has to invent some legend to account for the size-12's?

.

:cow:
How could a not-so-strong 9yo boy possess the physical ability to dress a body of dead weight in order to maneuver a pair of panties and the leggings onto the naked body of his dead sister? I don't think BR could nor would construct then pull the garrote hard enough to do the damages that were done during the strangulation.

Do you think BR placed duct tape over her mouth and used piece of a sharp toy train part or a stun gun to harm his own sister's face? Had the same thing happened to BR in the past?

Did BR lure JBR, who detested the basement, down into the unpleasant basement for his own selfish purpose? To assault his 6yo sister? Or to kill her intentionally?

Why was going into the basement so important to BR? Had he schemed and developed this plan or game with his sister for a long time?

How would the ruse of searching the unopened gifts lead to a severe head bash while hanging then the final garroting?

I admit that I don't understand the BDI theory so these are sincere queries. otg has meticulously explained the best BDI theory to date and it still doesn't hold water for me mostly due to his young age with the tiredness he must have felt from a month of festivities coupled with JBR not willing to be being cooperative. She was zonked after the Ws party.

I don't think BR was sexually active with his sister. Sadly, someone else was molesting JBR.

 

[otg]

:cow:
How could a not-so-strong 9yo boy possess the physical ability to dress a body of dead weight in order to maneuver a pair of panties and the leggings onto the naked body of his dead sister? I don't think BR could nor would construct then pull the garrote hard enough to do the damages that were done during the strangulation.

Do you think BR placed duct tape over her mouth and used piece of a sharp toy train part or a stun gun to harm his own sister's face? Had the same thing happened to BR in the past?

Did BR lure JBR, who detested the basement, down into the unpleasant basement for his own selfish purpose? To assault his 6yo sister? Or to kill her intentionally?

Why was going into the basement so important to BR? Had he schemed and developed this plan or game with his sister for a long time?

How would the ruse of searching the unopened gifts lead to a severe head bash while hanging then the final garroting?

DeDee, I agree with you on the first part. I don't think Burke had the physical strength (or inclination) to redress an unconscious 6yo.

I believe all the staging and undoing was done by both parents working together. And even though I think Burke is the person who caused the events, I still hold both John and Patsy responsible for what happened. (So did the Ramsey grand jury, I might point out.)

I admit that I don't understand the BDI theory so these are sincere queries. otg has meticulously explained the best BDI theory to date and it still doesn't hold water for me mostly due to his young age with the tiredness he must have felt from a month of festivities coupled with JBR not willing to be being cooperative.

I won't try to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise, DD. All I would ask is that you keep the possibility open in your own mind when new information comes out.

She was zonked after the Ws party.

She was "zonked" according to the lying Ramseys.

I don't think BR was sexually active with his sister. Sadly, someone else was molesting JBR.

I don't know that "sexually active" would be the right description of what had been happening according to what Dr. Meyer found at autopsy. Molesting would cover a lot more things and would be more along the line of what could possibly be expected from a prepubescent boy -- especially one who might have been molested himself or who had older friends who got him interested is such things.

But of course, that's all JMO.

 

[DeDee]

DeDee, I agree with you on the first part. I don't think Burke had the physical strength (or inclination) to redress an unconscious 6yo.

I believe all the staging and undoing was done by both parents working together. And even though I think Burke is the person who caused the events, I still hold both John and Patsy responsible for what happened. (So did the Ramsey grand jury, I might point out.)

I won't try to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise, DD. All I would ask is that you keep the possibility open in your own mind when new information comes out.

She was "zonked" according to the lying Ramseys.

I don't know that "sexually active" would be the right description of what had been happening according to what Dr. Meyer found at autopsy. Molesting would cover a lot more things and would be more along the line of what could possibly be expected from a prepubescent boy -- especially one who might have been molested himself or who had older friends who got him interested is such things.

But of course, that's all JMO.

Yes, I'm aware of the declarations in the True Bills. It fits that any person could have been abusing JBR and JR and PR covered for the killer for allowing it to happen.

It wasn't that you were attempting to convince anyone of your version that BDI. It was more the concise manner in which you placed the facts of the basement activites, as we know them to be now and then, and how the perp could have been 9yo BR and his victim was his 6yo sister. Therefore, my problem with that is JBR was fearful of the basement. She had to be enticed into going down to the basement as BR could not physically carry her there from the Kitchen area.

Do you think once the hanging event occurred, BR dashed upstairs to share his fears to his parents of having gravely hurt his sister? Then, he was dismissed to his room until JR and FW went to his room to get him to go to FWs house at 8am.? The same home BR had been at twelve hours earlier, and soon afterward, his sister is dead. That makes no sense to me that he was taken to that particular location. Why not haul him to play with DStine? No, he would return basically to the scene of the crime. Perhaps it was to instill fear. I mean, there is that nasty electric fence that shocked BR the evening before while at the Ws.

The RN does not tell us that their son did this to JBR. The RN never mentions JonBenet's name. PR clearly blamed two people for the death in the RN and those are that she blamed JR and FW or JR and DP. I fully believe the RN was a special message to all of the gathered friends of the Rs, the Fat Cats and spouses.

PR was the only one alive who knew there were panties in the Christmas wrapped presents in the basement. She used what she had on hand. It could have been this is why they were purchased. PR was an ill individual. A quite cunning wealthy beauty queen was lurking behind her soft-spoken Southern voice.

Are all of the replies of the Rs to be discounted as lies? Which one of their lies matter?

 

[BBB167893]

PR was the only one alive who knew there were panties in the Christmas wrapped presents in the basement. She used what she had on hand. It could have been this is why they were purchased. PR was an ill individual. A quite cunning wealthy beauty queen was lurking behind her soft-spoken Southern voice.

Perhaps "devious" might be a good word? Maybe a bit too strong.

Are all of the replies of the Rs to be discounted as lies? Which one of their lies matter?

Boy, those are some good questions. I guess I'll be generous and say that we can only say something is a lie when it directly contradicts known facts. As for which lies matter, that might be a matter of opinion. If I were to make a list:

1) The claim that she was asleep when taken into the house
2) That Burke was asleep (or just in bed) for the 911 call
3) Patsy's story trying to account for her sweater fibers on JB.
4) Not a verbal lie, but a physical one: Patsy trying to convince people she would wear the same clothing twice in a row and changing her writing after the killing.

That's what I've got right now.

 

[otg]

Yes, I'm aware of the declarations in the True Bills. It fits that any person could have been abusing JBR and JR and PR covered for the killer for allowing it to happen.

Then you really have to ask yourself who the most likely person is that they would cover for. "Any person?" If it was someone outside of the family who they knew was abusing her and eventually killed her, would they risk their own skins to cover for that person?

It wasn't that you were attempting to convince anyone of your version that BDI. It was more the concise manner in which you placed the facts of the basement activites, as we know them to be now and then, and how the perp could have been 9yo BR and his victim was his 6yo sister. Therefore, my problem with that is JBR was fearful of the basement. She had to be enticed into going down to the basement as BR could not physically carry her there from the Kitchen area.

The story about JonBenet being fearful of the basement came from only one source. That was the nanny before LHP was hired. JonBenet was younger then and I don't know if it's really fair to say that she was fearful of it for the rest of her life. I don't think she was carried kicking and screaming to the basement. I think she wouldn't have minded going there if she had someone with her that she trusted.

Do you think once the hanging event occurred, BR dashed upstairs to share his fears to his parents of having gravely hurt his sister? Then, he was dismissed to his room until JR and FW went to his room to get him to go to FWs house at 8am.? The same home BR had been at twelve hours earlier, and soon afterward, his sister is dead. That makes no sense to me that he was taken to that particular location. Why not haul him to play with DStine? No, he would return basically to the scene of the crime. Perhaps it was to instill fear. I mean, there is that nasty electric fence that shocked BR the evening before while at the Ws.

The RN does not tell us that their son did this to JBR. The RN never mentions JonBenet's name. PR clearly blamed two people for the death in the RN and those are that she blamed JR and FW or JR and DP. I fully believe the RN was a special message to all of the gathered friends of the Rs, the Fat Cats and spouses.

PR was the only one alive who knew there were panties in the Christmas wrapped presents in the basement. She used what she had on hand. It could have been this is why they were purchased. PR was an ill individual. A quite cunning wealthy beauty queen was lurking behind her soft-spoken Southern voice.

Are all of the replies of the Rs to be discounted as lies? Which one of their lies matter?

Okay. Too many questions to answer, but I can see you don't really want to even consider this as a possibility. That's cool. We're good.

 

[UKGuy]

:cow:
How could a not-so-strong 9yo boy possess the physical ability to dress a body of dead weight in order to maneuver a pair of panties and the leggings onto the naked body of his dead sister? I don't think BR could nor would construct then pull the garrote hard enough to do the damages that were done during the strangulation.

Do you think BR placed duct tape over her mouth and used piece of a sharp toy train part or a stun gun to harm his own sister's face? Had the same thing happened to BR in the past?

Did BR lure JBR, who detested the basement, down into the unpleasant basement for his own selfish purpose? To assault his 6yo sister? Or to kill her intentionally?

Why was going into the basement so important to BR? Had he schemed and developed this plan or game with his sister for a long time?

How would the ruse of searching the unopened gifts lead to a severe head bash while hanging then the final garroting?

I admit that I don't understand the BDI theory so these are sincere queries. otg has meticulously explained the best BDI theory to date and it still doesn't hold water for me mostly due to his young age with the tiredness he must have felt from a month of festivities coupled with JBR not willing to be being cooperative. She was zonked after the Ws party.

I don't think BR was sexually active with his sister. Sadly, someone else was molesting JBR.

DeDee,
With BDI the common error people make is to mix up likely staging with JonBenet's original assault.

Here are some common sense BDI assumptions:

1. It all started upstairs, say in JonBenet's bedroom or the breakfast bar?

2. After being sexually assaulted and whacked on the head someone moved JonBenet down to the basement. She may have been dragged from the breakfast bar, consider the abrasions on her body?

Here are some common sense staging assumptions:

3. JonBenet was cleaned up, removing most external blood-stains and redressed in the size-12's, the white long johns, and the white gap top.

4. She was then turned onto her stomach and ligature asphyxiated, then the paintbrush was broken and fashioned as seen in the autopsy photographs.

5. At some point, either stage 3. or stage 4. JonBenet may have been internally assaulted with the paintbrush, as staging this has never officially been confirmed and a piece of the paintbrush is missing.

6. JonBenet is wrapped in the blanket, and hidden away somewhere in the basement.

7. The bloodstained pink barbie nightgown is placed into the wine-cellar along with the partially opened Christmas gifts and the barbie doll, i.e. relocating and hiding forensic evidence.

Some points to consider: both PR and JR are directly linked to the wine-cellar via forensic evidence, PR's fibers are on items that could not have arrived accidentally, similarly with JR. The pink barbie nightgown has JonBenet's blood on it along with BR's touch-dna, this links BR to the crime-scene.

If the case is IDI then none of the R's should have related forensic evidence at the crime-scene.

Since all three R's have forensic evidence located on wine-cellar items, then the case is RDI.

Furthermore the forensic evidence suggests all three R's undertook various parts in the death and staging of JonBenet.

The Grand Jury charged the parents with assisting an offender and committing child abuse.

That leaves one unnamed R as the person in receipt of the parents assistance.

.

 

[BoldBear]

UKGuy,

Burke's tDNA on the nightgown isn't odd. We can't determine when his tDNA was put on the nightgown, but Burke lived in the house. Now if he was someone who claimed he wasn't in the home, we'd have a smoking gun. How can you tell he wasn't looking for something in a laundry basket or JB's drawer and handled the nightgown? How about the idea that the nightgown was on JB's floor and simply walked on it with his bare feet? For that matter what about her wearing it previously and Burke simply touching his sister? It doesn't put Burke at the crime scene.

I'm not arguing against BDI just connecting Burke's tDNA to the time JB's blood was deposited on the nightgown. They may or may not have anything to do with each other.

 

[reintarnation]

There has been a lot of discussion on this topic recently! It's gotten me to look at this piece of evidence in a totally new light, and I'm excited to share my latest thoughts. Everything below is MOO and RDI, but it's the best way I can fit all of these little pieces we've been discussing together.

For me, the main questions are:
1. Where were the oversized panties located / where did they come from?
2. Why was JBR wearing the oversized panties / why did her original panties need to be changed?
3. Why weren't any of JBR's other panties used instead?
4. Who decided to use the panties / who put them on her?

The following attempts to answer some of those questions...

+ PR purchased the panties for her niece. They were wrapped and kept with the other wrapped Christmas presents in the basement. PR searched for them by peeling back corners of the presents' wrapping. Since only PR had knowledge of the purchase and wrapping, she alone decided to use a pair on JBR that night.
--> I think the head blow happened somewhere other than the basement and, as PR is brainstorming how to cover it up, she decides that the first order of business is to clean JBR and put her in clean pants and panties. Since the clean panties are in the basement and there is a bathroom down there, it becomes a convenient and perfect location for staging.
--> It's also possible that, as she claimed, PR kept the package of oversized panties in JBR's drawer. In that scenario, either JBR put them on that day/night and she was not redressed, or JR/BR grabbed them at random, not realizing they had never been worn or that they were too large.
--> I'm less inclined to either of those possibilities - it's abundantly clear that the panties were very oversized, so PR would have noticed this when she dressed JBR for bed or JR/BR would have noticed the same and simply grabbed another pair from the drawer. The package with the remaining panties was returned intact, meaning if it was in the drawer, JR/BR would have selected a packaged, unworn pair instead of her normal ones. Possible, but less likely.
--> There is another theory that the panties were those of a friend. While tantalizing, that requires PR to lie about purchasing the panties and later purchase and alter a package of panties to be sent to LE. If there was a chance the panties led to an outside source, PR and TR would have jumped on it. I don't buy that she lied to cover up for a friend since they turned in all their friends anyway.

+ Let's not forget that there was nothing random about the selection of these panties: they were the correct day of the week. If JBR was redressed in these panties post-mortem, would someone take care to select the correct day of the week but not care that they were egregiously oversized? Why would someone not use any other pair of panties in JBR's drawer? This implies that there was a specific reason why these panties were chosen, and it's not to lend credence to IDI (otherwise PR could have simply lied about the package's existence).

+ As part of the clean up process, PR determined that the underwear JBR had been wearing were unacceptable because of what was in them. What the original panties contained would lead to the motive for JBR's death.
--> If there was a sexual assault that night preceding JBR's murder, the original panties would have been removed or at least moved during the assault. The only way they would contain evidence of that sexual assault (blood, semen, etc.) is if the panties were replaced after the assault, then removed once more to be changed to the oversized pair.
--> Another possibility is that JBR urinated or defecated in the original panties. The toileting issue scenario also answers the question of why PR didn't pick any other pair in a way that the sexual assault scenario doesn't - JBR's other panties were urine and feces stained, and putting her in one of those would draw attention to JBR's toileting issues as her body is being examined for manner of death. The issues couldn't be completely hidden, but PR didn't want them to be evident in the crime scene so that she could later downplay them and their role in the events of that night.

+ The original panties, along with other critical evidence (third piece of the paintbrush, materials used to wipe JBR down, etc.) were either destroyed, trashed, or secreted away. We can all agree that Rs had ample time to handle evidence as they pleased prior to it being seized as part of the investigation.

+ I think that the package of remaining size 12 panties was also hidden and removed as part of that process, only once PR realized that for her story about having them in JBR's drawer to work, they had to have them somewhere (otherwise it could lead to suspicions about Rs hiding evidence).

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Burke's tDNA on the nightgown isn't odd. We can't determine when his tDNA was put on the nightgown, but Burke lived in the house. Now if he was someone who claimed he wasn't in the home, we'd have a smoking gun. How can you tell he wasn't looking for something in a laundry basket or JB's drawer and handled the nightgown? How about the idea that the nightgown was on JB's floor and simply walked on it with his bare feet? For that matter what about her wearing it previously and Burke simply touching his sister? It doesn't put Burke at the crime scene.

I'm not arguing against BDI just connecting Burke's tDNA to the time JB's blood was deposited on the nightgown. They may or may not have anything to do with each other.

BoldBear,
The location of the pink barbie nightgown was not JonBenet's bedroom, the breakfast bar, etc, it was a relatively inaccessible windowless room, which is a crime-scene. So the probability of BR's touch-dna being present is low.

BBM: maybe the bloodstain and BR's touch-dna arrived via two separate events, but that does not rule out those events being part of the overall homicide process.

Although BR's touch-dna might have an innocent explanation, given other facts, it does not look good.

.

 

[BoldBear]

BoldBear,
The location of the pink barbie nightgown was not JonBenet's bedroom, the breakfast bar, etc, it was a relatively inaccessible windowless room, which is a crime-scene. So the probability of BR's touch-dna being present is low.

BBM: maybe the bloodstain and BR's touch-dna arrived via two separate events, but that does not rule out those events being part of the overall homicide process.

Although BR's touch-dna might have an innocent explanation, given other facts, it does not look good.

.

But you don't know where that nightgown was before it was in the WC.

 

[ozazure]

The tDNA is next to worthless, the whole house is swarming with it, unless the DNA comes from identifiable sources and speaks to a particular action, what of it? If you can transfer minute amounts of your skin cells to a nightie, you can transfer them from a surface to the nightie ad carry the garment anywhere else ... if there is a smear of saliva or something, that's quite different.

 

[BoldBear]

Agreed, but not entirely worthless. If a match is ever found, then LE has work to do. They have to do the interviews and check facts.

 

[UKGuy]

But you don't know where that nightgown was before it was in the WC.

BoldBear,

100% correct and I do not know where Burke Ramsey was before the nightgown was placed into the wine-cellar.

What I do know is that the nightgown contains blood from JonBenet and touch-dna from Burke Ramsey.

Both items may have arrived at the same time or at separate points in time. Note that neither JR or PR's touch-dna is recorded only BR's?

.

 

[madeleine]

BoldBear,

100% correct and I do not know where Burke Ramsey was before the nightgown was placed into the wine-cellar.

What I do know is that the nightgown contains blood from JonBenet and touch-dna from Burke Ramsey.

Both items may have arrived at the same time or at separate points in time. Note that neither JR or PR's touch-dna is recorded only BR's?

.

it/s becoming mre and more creepy.I was always convinced that she wore the nightgown when IT happened.not so sure anymore since there is blood on the shirt as well...which makes me wonder....was she still alive AND bleeding when redressed??this could change lots of scenarios