You, the jury

[UKGuy]

I can be of that opinion. But again you're missing the whole point:

Everybody knows a criminal both lowered and raised JBR's longjohns.

You said this is completely incorrect and yet Clauducci correctly points out that the criminal could've been wearing gloves. Others have pointed out that PR/JR were the criminals but could've been unwitting hosts to stranger skin cells. These are possibilities (maybe?) but are vastly more remote. See what I mean? There's a criminal here, and the criminal both raised and lowered the longjohns. That is correct but you posted it was incorrect. Do you understand it better now?

The fact that skin cells were found in enough quantities in two different areas to produce a DNA profile suggests no gloves. The fact that PR/JR DNA was not a result of the test on either side of the longjohn waistband suggests they didn't carry the skin cells there.

Holdontoyourhat,

I reckon you are beginning to realize that the difference between touch-dna and semen-dna means that an IDI based on touch-dna is pretty weak.

There's a criminal here, and the criminal both raised and lowered the longjohns. That is correct but you posted it was incorrect. Do you understand it better now?

I never said anything about anyone raising or lowering JonBenet's longjohns, please do not quote me on this.

What I said is that you cannot know if the person who deposited the touch-dna onto JonBenet's clothing is the same person who killed her.

As you opine , I can be of that opinion., naturally this applies to anyone, you are not unique, I can offer you opinions on many things, but as some wag remarked, opinions are like arseholes everyone has one!

The fact that skin cells were found in enough quantities in two different areas to produce a DNA profile suggests no gloves. The fact that PR/JR DNA was not a result of the test on either side of the longjohn waistband suggests they didn't carry the skin cells there.

Why do you insist on the use of the term DNA its touch-dna. You cannot tell me if any cells from PR or JR were found on the longjohns can you? Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence is it Holdontoyourhat?

Again your heroic attempt at fallacious resoning falls at the first hurdle e.g.

The fact that skin cells were found in enough quantities in two different areas to produce a DNA profile suggests no gloves.

As Borat might remark Nice ... but not nice enough. The gloves may have prior dna on them from a prior assault! Not unless you reckon said intruder purchased sterile latex gloves?

The skin cells may not be related to JonBenet's death, they may simply be artifact, biological detritus, arriving on her clothing via some third party, whilst your ethereal intruder strides in, molests and kills JonBenet.

You cannot know otherwise, if you do please present yourself at BPD office ASAP.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What I said is that you cannot know if the person who deposited the touch-dna onto JonBenet's clothing is the same person who killed her.

Boy now I've heard everything. Every other remote possibility circumventing prima facie like the plague. Why is that? I mean, someone used used latex gloves that already had the previous victims DNA on them? Like Ive said many times, I'll never claim that RDI didn't explore every remote possibility other than the most obvious one! Sometimes and orange is an orange.

Try as you may--and boy have you tried--the direct transfer of skin cells by its owner to two places on the longjohns will forever be the most likely scenario. End of story.

JBR was most likely sexually assaulted and killed by a strange male.

And the idea that Bode would withhold a positive PR DNA result from one or both longjohn scrapings is, well, ridiculous. Grasping at straws no less. A frantic effort to keep RDI afloat despite waves of conflicting evidence and public opinion. But like you said, everyone's got an opinion. Trouble is when Detective Smit, Judge Carnes, D.A. Lacy, or the Grand Jury holds the opinion. See what I mean?

 

[MurriFlower]

Ok, well back to my story. Unfortunately, I've had to make a couple of corrections to make this hypothetical a little more acurate.

About lunchtime on Christmas Day 1996, JR opened the door to a strange man. There was actually nothing strange about him, except that JR didn't know him. But they quickly began talking and got to know each other and cutting a long story short, JR invited the stranger to eat Christmas Lunch with the family. He was very personable and was soon regaling the family with stories and they had a wonderful lunch. The Rs found out he didn't have anywhere to stay that night, so they invited him to stay in JARs room. What the family didn't know, and couldn't tell from his behaviour, was that he was a Homicidal Maniac! Hereinafter referred to as HM. When the family were getting ready to go to the Whites that evening, naturally they invited him too. But HM said he didn't want to impose and anyway he was a little tired after the wonderful day and he would just watch TV and chill out in their beautiful home. The family arrived back around 9pm and the routine we are familiar with was played out, with JR and PR off to bed around 10pm. At 6am, PR gets up and soon after finds the RN, dials 911 and her friends come over. BR is still asleep, but HM wakes and joins the friends in supporting the Rs. As per script, no call comes and JR and FW go to the basement at 1pm and find JBR dead. JR gives LA 'the look' and she immediately knows he did it. PR flings herself on JBR and the group, including HM, gather and pray.

This is where I got lost as I haven't heard the story for a long time, and there were a few errors, so they are corrected in the story below:

"Following the discover of JBRs body, the family, their adult children who have just arrived, their friends including HM, all pile into a few vehicles and leave the house. The Rs go to the Fernies where they will be staying. HM hugs PR, shakes hands with JR and the other friends, and tells them how sorry he is for their loss, but that he has to be on his way. They all say a little prayer, and calls goodbye leaving on foot, waving as he goes.

So, the Cops now begin their investigation of the murder. They know statistically that the parents are the most likely suspects.

LA and another cop visit the Rs at the Fernies that night and try to persuade them to go to the station for an interview. The Rs are distraught, PR is heavily sedated, JR is drunk. However, the cops decide to interview them as best they can. In all the confusion of the day, they were not aware that HM was not a family friend or Church member or victim support, and that he was, in fact, present in the house that night. They also find, to their dismay, he has left and no one knows where he went.

The cops return to the station and begin their investigation and this is when they discover that HM is, in fact, a Homidical Maniac!! Imagine that, a HM who spent the night in the house where a child was murdered! So they set out to find him. His address is listed as No Fixed Abode (NFA). The cops visit NFA and interview the many people who reside there, but none is HM and no one at NFA knows HM or where he could be found.

They report back to their Chief. Do we continue to waste resources searching for HM, who may or may not be involved in JBR's murder, or do we continue to persue evidence against the Rs?? Chief says, lets just collect evidence.

The expert reports soon come back.

1. There is unknown male touch DNA in three places on the underwear/longjohns
2. There is fibers from an unknown garment on the tape/clothing/blanket
3. There are 4 red fibers consistent with PR's jacket on the tape

So, now they are in a quandry. They have clear evidence against PR, although of course the fibers COULD have gotten there innocently. They have clear evidence of an unknown person, whose fibers/DNA also COULD have gotten there innocently."

What do they do now??

 

[DeeDee249]

Nobody knows a helper handled the longjohns. However, everybody knows a criminal handled the longjohns. There's a difference here, and the difference is huge. Don't you get it? Sometimes RDI throws stuff at the wall, just to see what'll stick.

Nobody knows a criminal handled them either. Until we know WHO it was, we don't know if it was a criminal or helper.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nobody knows a criminal handled them either. Until we know WHO it was, we don't know if it was a criminal or helper.

:banghead: You and UKGuy need to talk this over.

OF COURSE a criminal handled the longjohns.

Unless you believe that JBR raised and lowered the longjohns herself, which is absurd. Somebody raised and lowered the longjohns during crime. This is inarguable and yet RDI keeps arguing it.

The question isn't whether or not a criminal handled them, the question is was the criminal PR, JR, or the DNA owner, or an intruder carrying around the DNA of an innocent man? The most likely and the prima facie answer is that the DNA owner deposited his own skin cells directly.

 

[Ames]

:banghead: You and UKGuy need to talk this over.

OF COURSE a criminal handled the longjohns.

Unless you believe that JBR raised and lowered the longjohns herself, which is absurd. Somebody raised and lowered the longjohns during crime. This is inarguable and yet RDI keeps arguing it.

The question isn't whether or not a criminal handled them, the question is was the criminal PR, JR, or the DNA owner, or an intruder carrying around the DNA of an innocent man? The most likely and the prima facie answer is that the DNA owner deposited his own skin cells directly.

And how do you know this?? Okay...so DNA is left on the long johns....but not on anything else?? Okay, lets say an intruder came in....wearing a bee keeper suit (just kidding..but, how else would he not have deposited any other evidence?) and gloves. He wore the gloves whle he wrote the note, apparently...because the only fingerprints found on the note, were from the Ramsey's....and then what? Took them off to remove JB's longjohns?? What in the world for?? If he was afraid to take off those gloves to write a RN, he would have been too afraid to take them off to remove JB's longjohns. Afraid of leaving behind evidence. I am quite positive that the DNA left behind, was from touch DNA. IF they find some intruder DNA on the garotte, on the blanket, on the tape, etc. THEN...and only then...will we have evidence of an intruder. DNA found in ONE place...isn't enough.

 

[FIND'HER]

Ok, I havent read this post in some time. So Im trying to play catch up tonight. Has it ever been discussed about the ransom Note, that maybe the intruder broke into the house at an earlier time. Stole the pen and paper to write the note on and made it look like the Rams/ wrote the note. There is a way of doing to make it look like PR wrote the note. By stealing her previous handwritten notes and using a projector or a light table to compose the note with. Hope this doesnt seem far fetched. But I was jusr thinking outside the box. When wearing gloves and removing gloves were discussed, was any DNA found on the ink pen that was used and was there more pens in the house of the same make, found the same lot and style. Just saying kinda like it u went and purchase a large pack of Bic pens or Papermate, another thing could the Rams/ have been held at gun point by a group/persons for bad business dealing and made to write the note and threaten to play along as a kinapping/murder in fear of there own lives or other family members?????Sorry to ramble....Just Curious. Kinda hard to stay on top of this case. Just so much has been discussed.

 

[UKGuy]

:banghead: You and UKGuy need to talk this over.

OF COURSE a criminal handled the longjohns.

Unless you believe that JBR raised and lowered the longjohns herself, which is absurd. Somebody raised and lowered the longjohns during crime. This is inarguable and yet RDI keeps arguing it.

The question isn't whether or not a criminal handled them, the question is was the criminal PR, JR, or the DNA owner, or an intruder carrying around the DNA of an innocent man? The most likely and the prima facie answer is that the DNA owner deposited his own skin cells directly.

Holdontoyourhat,

The question isn't whether or not a criminal handled them, the question is was the criminal PR, JR, or the DNA owner, or an intruder carrying around the DNA of an innocent man? The most likely and the prima facie answer is that the DNA owner deposited his own skin cells directly.

Its not DNA its touch-dna. And I agree with what you say, more than one person may have deposited the touch-dna.


.

 

[UKGuy]

And how do you know this?? Okay...so DNA is left on the long johns....but not on anything else?? Okay, lets say an intruder came in....wearing a bee keeper suit (just kidding..but, how else would he not have deposited any other evidence?) and gloves. He wore the gloves whle he wrote the note, apparently...because the only fingerprints found on the note, were from the Ramsey's....and then what? Took them off to remove JB's longjohns?? What in the world for?? If he was afraid to take off those gloves to write a RN, he would have been too afraid to take them off to remove JB's longjohns. Afraid of leaving behind evidence. I am quite positive that the DNA left behind, was from touch DNA. IF they find some intruder DNA on the garotte, on the blanket, on the tape, etc. THEN...and only then...will we have evidence of an intruder. DNA found in ONE place...isn't enough.

Ames,

The fact that its touch-dna and not semen-dna blood-dna, saliva-dna, hair-dna etc, etc must imply its a one off event and probably been transferred randomly.

As you say where is the rest of the forensic evidence, why is there none taken directly from JonBenet's person, why just from her clothing. The autopsy cites an internal injury, did the intruder decide to wear gloves for this assault as you suggest?

I reckon an IDI based on touch-dna is pretty weak!

.

 

[BBB167893]

But here's the thing, and I think SD said this himself, it's the totality of evidence that makes up the picture.

That's right, my friend. And the very first post of this very thread illustrates just that.

 

[BBB167893]

no,what you're saying would only be true if the R's were isolated in their house and never left and never let anyone else in.

Even Tom Haney said it: every crime scene is going to have random things that don't fit. Personally, I've yet to hear of a case where every single thing "clicked" together as kosher as it does in the movies.

 

[BBB167893]

Sometimes RDI throws stuff at the wall, just to see what'll stick.

We couldn't have asked for better teachers.

 

[BBB167893]

Every other remote possibility circumventing prima facie like the plague. Why is that?

You're asking US?

Sometimes and orange is an orange.

I've been saying that for years!

Try as you may--and boy have you tried--the direct transfer of skin cells by its owner to two places on the longjohns will forever be the most likely scenario. End of story.

The end? This is just the beginning.

And the idea that Bode would withhold a positive PR DNA result from one or both longjohn scrapings is, well, ridiculous.

And you'd think they wouldn't hesitate to tell me so. Maybe Sophie can succeed where I failed.

Trouble is when Detective Smit, Judge Carnes, D.A. Lacy, or the Grand Jury holds the opinion. See what I mean?

The trouble is how they ARRIVED at that opinion. See what I mean?

 

[DeeDee249]

Ok, I havent read this post in some time. So Im trying to play catch up tonight. Has it ever been discussed about the ransom Note, that maybe the intruder broke into the house at an earlier time. Stole the pen and paper to write the note on and made it look like the Rams/ wrote the note. There is a way of doing to make it look like PR wrote the note. By stealing her previous handwritten notes and using a projector or a light table to compose the note with. Hope this doesnt seem far fetched. But I was jusr thinking outside the box. When wearing gloves and removing gloves were discussed, was any DNA found on the ink pen that was used and was there more pens in the house of the same make, found the same lot and style. Just saying kinda like it u went and purchase a large pack of Bic pens or Papermate, another thing could the Rams/ have been held at gun point by a group/persons for bad business dealing and made to write the note and threaten to play along as a kinapping/murder in fear of there own lives or other family members?????Sorry to ramble....Just Curious. Kinda hard to stay on top of this case. Just so much has been discussed.

It's all been discussed and discarded.

The pen that wrote the RN was a Sharpie, not a Bic, and the ink on the note matched one of the markers in the home exactly.
NO one got took paper and pen and wrote that note before that day. If you believe the note, you believe is was a group of foreigners who were not from the area anyway. This crime was not a premeditated crime, and not a real kidnapping (since the victim was left in the house).

 

[CathyR]

I think only hair was found in the garrote, no fibers.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think only hair was found in the garrote, no fibers.

Wrong. Fibers from Patsy's sweater were found wound into the garrote knot.

 

[CathyR]

And how do you know this?? Okay...so DNA is left on the long johns....but not on anything else?? Okay, lets say an intruder came in....wearing a bee keeper suit (just kidding..but, how else would he not have deposited any other evidence?) and gloves. He wore the gloves whle he wrote the note, apparently...because the only fingerprints found on the note, were from the Ramsey's....and then what? Took them off to remove JB's longjohns?? What in the world for?? If he was afraid to take off those gloves to write a RN, he would have been too afraid to take them off to remove JB's longjohns. Afraid of leaving behind evidence. I am quite positive that the DNA left behind, was from touch DNA. IF they find some intruder DNA on the garotte, on the blanket, on the tape, etc. THEN...and only then...will we have evidence of an intruder. DNA found in ONE place...isn't enough.

He did leave behind a pubic hair it is found on blanket.

Here is article and link


http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682513/The-Body#HumanHair

Hair Evidence
Human Hair

* Hair on Blanket

1. Where Found. "a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF P 179; PSMF P 179.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF P 180; PSMF P 180.)" (Carnes 2003:22). According to Rocky Mountain News, "Also, some believe that the most critical piece of evidence seized in the search of the Ramseys' Boulder home may be one that doesn't show up in the 65 pages of documents that were released last week. It's a single pubic hair, found on the blanket that covered JonBenet's ravaged body, where she lay on the bare floor of a small basement room...But that hair doesn't show up on the itemized list of evidence seized at the Ramseys' Boulder home in any way that is clear or obvious."
2. No Match to Ramseys. "It does not match any member of the Ramsey family,'' said a Ramsey representative who requested anonymity. The failure to trace that hair to anyone inside or outside JonBenet's family has also been confirmed by law enforcement sources.
3. Significance. "That single hair, I don't want to understate it, is the single most significant thing I've heard," said Denver attorney Scott Robinson. "It's far more significant than all the talk about melting snow, were there footprints or weren't there, a broken window, can you get in or can't you. But that hair -- a defense lawyer can make a lot out of it. "Because," Robinson added, "if I'm the prosecutor, I have to be really worried as to how I can put together a plausible story ... that explains the existence of a pubic hair not belonging to anyone that they know of, on a blanket covering the child. That hair explains why the delay (in making an arrest), why the caution."
4. This FBI report explains how racial origin can be deduced from a hair sample.



* Hair on Sleeve

1. In one autopsy photo, a dark hair can be seen on the sleeve of JBR's white shirt (photo).
2. This hair appears split, but Internet poster Insight has enlarged this photo and claims it actually is two hairs, the larger appearing to be synthetic (as from a doll) and the smaller appearing to come from Patsy Ramsey. Internet poster Paradox believes Insight is seeing things.


Animal Hair

* Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19).
* Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)" (Carnes 2003:19).


Who Has Submitted Hair Samples?

1. Family Members. John Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey, Burke Ramsey
2. Friends.

 

[CathyR]

Wrong. Fibers from Patsy's sweater were found wound into the garrote knot.

I beg to differ and this is my source and link.
1. Back to The Body
2. Overview
3. What Ramseys Were Wearing on December 25
4. Fibers in Paint Tray
5. Fibers on Duct Tape
6. Dark Fibers in Genital Area
1. Blue Cotton Fibers?
2. Black Fibers?
3. Sources Ruled Out
7. Brown Cotton Fibers
8. Fibers from Sham & Duvet
9. Green Fibers in Hair.



Back to The Body


Overview

* An extensive general discussion of fiber evidence is available at an FBI site. "When a questioned fiber is compared to fibers from a known fabric source, a determination is made as to whether this fiber could have originated from the known fabric. It is not possible to say positively that a fiber originated from a particular fabric ….[Emphasis added] In order to say that the fiber originated from the item of clothing, the clothing either had to be the only fabric of its type ever produced or still remaining on earth, or the transfer of fibers was directly observed. Since neither of these situations is likely to occur or be known, fiber examiners will conclude that the fibers could have originated from the clothing or that the fibers are consistent with originating from the clothing. The only way to say that a fiber did not originate from a particular item of clothing is to know the actual history of the garment or to have actually observed the fiber transfer from another garment. It is argued that the large volume of fabric produced reduces the significance of any fiber association discovered in a criminal case. It can never be stated with certainty that a fiber originated from a particular garment because other garments were likely produced using the same fiber type and color. [Emphasis added] The inability to positively associate a fiber with a particular garment to the exclusion of all other garments, however, does not mean that the fiber association is without value."
* Some discussion of fiber evidence in the JBR case is on Webbsleuths.


What Ramseys Were Wearing on December 25

* Patsy Wore Red, Black and Grey Fleece. In the August 28, 2000 Atlanta interview, based on photos taken at White's party (shown to Patsy in the 1998 interviews), Patsy said she was wearing "kind of a black and red and gray fleece" on the night of December 25 (p. 153, lines 23-24). This is referred to as a "jacket" in Bruce Levin's further questioning of Patsy.
* Priscilla White Owned Similar Jacket. In the same interviews, Patsy explained how she got that jacket: "Priscilla had had one like it that I admired. And she told me, I believe she told me she got hers at EMS. So I went there to look. And they didn't have one or I didn't want to get one exactly like hers. So I think I got that one at Marshals in Boulder" (p. 154, lines 14-20).


Fibers in Paint Tray

* Levin Comments. In the August 28, 2000 Atlanta interview with Patsy, Bruce Levin stated: "Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray." (p. 200:lines 4-7).
* Significance? There is a substantial dispute over the significance of this.


Fibers on Duct Tape

Levin Comments. In the August 28, 2000 Atlanta interview with Patsy, Bruce Levin stated: "Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket....were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth." (p. 200:lines 4-10).

Lin Wood Comments. In the August 29, 2000 Atlanta interview with John Ramsey, Lin Wood asserted: "We are told there are hundreds of fibers, for example, on the duct tape." This statement was unrebutted by Bruce Levin (p. 57, lines 5-6).

* Henry Lee Comments. In December 2006, ït was reported that "several fibers were found on the duct tape covering JonBenet's mouth that were microscopically similar to a jacket worn by Patsy on Christmas night. Police considered that to be significant, but forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee has concluded that the fibers could have ended up there if "a mother kissed her child good night" and the fibers were transferred."


Dark Fibers in Genital Area

* Schiller's Account. "Arndt attended the autopsy. She reported that Meyers had found fibers on JBRs shirt which were similar to fibers found in her pubic area and also found green fibers in her hair...Meyers decided not to make notes of these events in his report" (Schiller 1999a:156; quotation and source provided by Internet poster Athena.

Blue Cotton Fibers?

* It was originally reported "Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area." These allegedly were consistent with John Ramsey's bathrobe.
* Beckner Testimony. In his November 26, 2001 deposition for the Wolf/Ramsey suit, Mark Beckner was asked: "Because there were blue fibers found on the crime scene?" and responded "Yes" (p. 116, lines 10-12).
* Fibers from American Girl Doll? Internet poster Jahazafat claims she used to work for Pleasant Company, which sells American Girl dolls. Jahazafat believes that the dark blue and tan fibers may have come from a "Molly" version of that doll since it had a skirt that sheds dark blue wool fibers and a tan cotton torso. Nedra purchased such a Molly doll in September 1996 and may have given it to JonBenet at Thanksgiving.


Black Fibers?

* Internet poster PagingDr Detect suggests that since the Ramseys were not asked about blue fibers in the 2000 interviews, that suggests either the police had definitely established the source of these fibers or, more likely, that fibers mistakenly reported as dark blue turned out to be black. Note, however, this is not consistent with Mark Beckner's November 2001 testimony, so he was mistaken, lied or there were blue AND black fibers.
* Fibers from John's Shirt?

1. In the 2000 interviews with Patsy Ramsey, it was revealed that black fibers were found in JBR's panties and her crotch area; these reportedly matched one of 2 black shirts provided by John to investigators.
2. Internet poster PagingDrDetect claims this was the same shirt John wore to the White's party the preceding night.
3. However, Internet poster Eagle1 claims John's black shirt was made of wool, but the dark fibers reportedly were cotton.
4. Internet poster Bill Salisbury has asserted: "Lin Wood is on record as saying he checked out that Bruce Levin allegation about a black fiber from John's shirt in JonBenet's crotch area. Lin Wood has said he knows for a fact that the Bruce Levin allegation is completely untrue. I believe Lin Wood about that. I don't think Lin Wood would say that if he didn't believe what he was saying and that his credibility could be questioned in court. I reckon Lin Wood has seen the forensic report about the black fiber matter and knows Bruce Levin was fabricating that evidence."


Sources Ruled Out

* "Earlier in the case, the police had thought the fibers from the body came from John Ramsey’s bathrobe or Patsy’s black pants or from the blanket found near JonBenét or from the blanket that had been found inside the suitcase under the broken basement window. The fibers might also have come from JonBenét’s own clothes or from one of her stuffed animals. By now, however, all of those possibilities had been excluded [emphasis added], and the only logical explanation was that the fibers came from whatever had been used to wipe JonBenét or possibly from someone who might have rubbed up against her when she was unclothed, which allowed fibers to find their way along her skin and eventually into the folds of her labia. In any event, the clothes worn by Patsy and John on Christmas would have to be compared with the fibers" (Schiller 1999a:563; quote and source provided by Internet poster Margoo ).


Brown Cotton Fibers

* "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 P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).
* Rocky Mountain News characterized these fibers as "light brown" and further reports that [Detective Lou] "Smit wonders if the killer wore gloves."
* Fibers from American Girl Doll? Internet poster Jahazafat claims she used to work for Pleasant Company, which sells American Girl dolls. Jahazafat believes that the dark blue and tan fibers may have come from a "Molly" version of that doll since it had a skirt that sheds dark blue wool fibers and a tan cotton torso. Nedra purchased such a Molly doll in September 1996 and may have given it to JonBenet at Thanksgiving.


Fibers from Sham & Duvet

* Where Found. A sham and duvet were found in the suitcase beneath the train room window.
* Match to Fibers on JBR? "A CBI examiner issued a report indicating fibers from the pillow sham and comforter were found on JonBenet's shirt, on her vaginal area, on the duct tape from her hand, on the hand ligature and inside the body bag." This is the lab report referenced in the Carnes opinion: "A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32, p. 68).
* Fibers on JBR Unmatched? However, it also has been reported “FBI analysis: FBI examiners said the fibers on JonBenet came from a source other than the pillow sham and comforter -- but none of them matched anything else in the house. "If the FBI examiner is right, the killer had to take that piece of material out with him," Smit said.”


Green Fibers in Hair.

* Schiller Account. "Arndt attended the autopsy. She reported that Meyers had found ... found green fibers in her hair...Meyers decided not to make notes of these events in his report" (Schiller 1999a:156; quotation and source


http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber-Evidence

 

[DeeDee249]

That was NOT a pubic hair. I don't care what the article said, This is just another example of false information that the RST KNOWS is a lie and has allowed to remain.

What was found was an ANCILLARY hair that WAS IDENTIFIED as being from Patsy Ramsey's forearm.

NONE of the information you posted comes from official sources. It was from Schiller's book.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That was NOT a pubic hair. I don't care what the article said, This is just another example of false information that the RST KNOWS is a lie and has allowed to remain.

What was found was an ANCILLARY hair that WAS IDENTIFIED as being from Patsy Ramsey's forearm.

NONE of the information you posted comes from official sources. It was from Schiller's book.

Also, if I remember correctly, Patsy was known to own a pair of beaver lined boots that were never collected.