IDI: Whats your problem?

[UKGuy]

Blood yes,saliva not necessarily,saliva could also mean it was a R accomplice.




definitely



where did you get that?



We don't know whether the panty dna is blood,saliva or skin.No one ever said what it is.And if they never bragged about it doesn't mean it's not so.

madeleine,

Blood yes,saliva not necessarily,saliva could also mean it was a R accomplice.

How so? Saliva is not skin-cells, that would mean this person was at the scene of the crime e.g. the saliva did not arrive accidently. Are you suggesting we have two intruders now? One of which wore a forensic clean suit and plastic gloves?

We don't know whether the panty dna is blood,saliva or skin.No one ever said what it is.And if they never bragged about it doesn't mean it's not so.

So if you do not know what status it has how can you use it to demonstrate that what am suggesting is incorrect. e..g. my thesis is that the person who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's deposited touch-dna from the FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper? The blood stain comes after this event.

I'm willing to accept that someone might know what type of genetic material was recovered from JonBenet's size-12's

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,

Why should the transfer scenario be dead, if the same person handled both sets of clothing?


.

Because saliva doesn't turn into skin cells by transfer does it.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,


How so? Saliva is not skin-cells, that would mean this person was at the scene of the crime e.g. the saliva did not arrive accidently. Are you suggesting we have two intruders now? One of which wore a forensic clean suit and plastic gloves?


So if you do not know what status it has how can you use it to demonstrate that what am suggesting is incorrect. e..g. my thesis is that the person who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's deposited touch-dna from the FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper? The blood stain comes after this event.

I'm willing to accept that someone might know what type of genetic material was recovered from JonBenet's size-12's

I don't think you understood me and I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[madeleine]

Blood yes,saliva not necessarily,saliva could also mean it was a R accomplice.

Blood means IDI,he was hurt during the crime,maybe JB scratched him.
Saliva could mean IDI but it could also mean RDI (a R accomplice sneezed,coughed while redressing her or cleaning the body)for ex

Hope this is clearer now.

 

[madeleine]

So if you do not know what status it has how can you use it to demonstrate that what am suggesting is incorrect.

You don't know either,so how can you demonstrate that you ARE correct?I am not saying it's incorrect,we don't have the necessary info,it's a possibilty but not a fact.(that the panty dna is skin cells).

 

[UKGuy]

No, I think its your voice I can hear.

You've gone to a lot of trouble to try to prove to me something, I'm trying to get clear in my mind just what it is.

All the snippets from interviews you posted have led you to draw a conclusion that appears to support your theory. That theory is very complex.

It involves PR killing her daughter in the basement, sexually assaulting her and taking off the bloodied panties (which I assume weren't on her when she sexually assaulted her, but what would I know?) unwrapping the gift wrapped panties, taking one pair out and putting them on her, pulling up the longjohns and in doing so transferred DNA from the man who gift wrapped the parcel to a spot of blood on the panties and both sides of the longjohns.

Well, gosh, how tidy is that?? You must be mightily pleased with yourself?

If I were to ask you where the rest of the panties, the box they were in and the paper they were wrapped in as well as the bloodied panties went, you glibly say "the Rs got rid of them". That makes me laugh!! You just went to so much trouble to get the panties on her, then everything else that doesn't fit your scenario just disappears??

I don't think so.

MurriFlower,

It involves PR killing her daughter in the basement, sexually assaulting her

I am not stating that PR sexually assaulted JonBenet, only that she faked an internal injury to simulate a sexual assault, this would then mask any prior molestation. Which Coroner Meyer opines took place e.g. digital penetration and sexual contact, neither of the latter are consistent with JonBenet's genital injuries.

taking off the bloodied panties (which I assume weren't on her when she sexually assaulted her, but what would I know?)

I dont know which underwear you are referring to here, JonBenet's size-6's or her size-12's?

unwrapping the gift wrapped panties, taking one pair out and putting them on her, pulling up the longjohns and in doing so transferred DNA from the man who gift wrapped the parcel to a spot of blood on the panties and both sides of the longjohns.

My theory, assumes that the dna at the crime-scene was transferred via touch-dna from the FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper? e.g. the gift wrapping paper had to be removed to access the size-12's.

This touch-dna e.g. the man who wrapped the parcel, was deposited onto the size-12's prior to blood stain. That is the size-12's were clean on JonBenet. There were no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer. The blood stain is a consequence of her genital assault.

Its likely that JonBenet was already naked from the waist down when she was assaulted in the basement, the status of her size-6 underwear is unknown, but there would be no requirement for size-12's with Wednesday printed on them if the size-6's were only worn and clean?

JonBenet's underwear were not the only items at the crime-scene to be blood-stained , I believe her nightgown was stained, but there has been no dna results released regarding those other items.

If I were to ask you where the rest of the panties, the box they were in and the paper they were wrapped in as well as the bloodied panties went, you glibly say "the Rs got rid of them". That makes me laugh!! You just went to so much trouble to get the panties on her, then everything else that doesn't fit your scenario just disappears??

Apparently the rest of the size-12's turned up in Atlanta a few years later, discovered in an unopened packing crate, and Lin Wood handed that package over to the Boulder DA’s office. As you might think the chain of custody is suspect here?

If you prefer the the IDI then the intruder removed the remaining size-12's along with her size-6's as a trophy of sorts?

Maybe there was never any size-12's at all maybe Patsy is lying outright when she states she purchased the size-12's in New York at Bloomingdales. Maybe an accomplice came over with the only pair of underwear that had Wednesday on them, and that person was male, who then assisted in a cover up, thereby transferring dna to the size-12's? We only have Patsy's word that she purchased size-12's at Bloomingdales, her star witness is dead!

wrapped in as well as the bloodied panties went, you glibly say "the Rs got rid of them". That makes me laugh!! You just went to so much trouble to get the panties on her, then everything else that doesn't fit your scenario just disappears??

Obviously things are improving, the prognosis looks promising, no headache? They do say laughter is the best therapy.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

madeleine,

Why should the transfer scenario be dead, if the same person handled both sets of clothing?

My understanding is that the dna comingled in the blood is degraded that is biologically it has started to break down, at a molecular level it is disintegrating.

So how they get an exact match is beyond me, maybe you can enlighten me, why has nobody stated if it was semen-dna or blood-dna, or saliva-dna, these all have particular chemical markers?

.

The term 'degraded' was used to describe a sample taken from one blood stain. Later, another sample found in another stain was never described as 'degraded' except by RDI who perpetuated the characterization of the first sample toward the 2nd sample, probably in an attempt to coverup any real progress in the case that didn't exacly favor RDI.

The genetic material from the 2nd blood stain was of higher quality than the first, high enough to be placed in CODIS where it is today.

Naturally RDI is quite upset about this finding and has ad hominem attacked DNA evidence found at the crime scene that didn't belong to PR or JR in almost every possible way. They have characterized it as degraded, substandard with only 9 1/2 markers, a mix of JR and PR DNA, owned by a factory worker, a lab tech, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING but an intruder. I'm surprised animal DNA wasn't suggested.

Only a few have acknowledged the possiblity it belongs to an intruder. Regardless, it IS evidence of an intruder because no matter what the DNA is, a mix, innocently placed, etc., it adds to IDI and subtracts from RDI and therefore explaining its presence with creative stories strictly limited to further RDI amounts to nothing more than staging. A coverup.

 

[UKGuy]

The term 'degraded' was used to describe a sample taken from one blood stain. Later, another sample found in another stain was never described as 'degraded' except by RDI who perpetuated the characterization of the first sample toward the 2nd sample, probably in an attempt to coverup any real progress in the case that didn't exacly favor RDI.

The genetic material from the 2nd blood stain was of higher quality than the first, high enough to be placed in CODIS where it is today.

Naturally RDI is quite upset about this finding and has ad hominem attacked DNA evidence found at the crime scene that didn't belong to PR or JR in almost every possible way. They have characterized it as degraded, substandard with only 9 1/2 markers, a mix of JR and PR DNA, owned by a factory worker, a lab tech, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING but an intruder. I'm surprised animal DNA wasn't suggested.

Only a few have acknowledged the possiblity it belongs to an intruder. Regardless, it IS evidence of an intruder because no matter what the DNA is, a mix, innocently placed, etc., it adds to IDI and subtracts from RDI and therefore explaining its presence with creative stories strictly limited to further RDI amounts to nothing more than staging. A coverup.

Holdontoyourhat,
How does one ad hominem attacked DNA evidence? Ad hominem means the person who is advocating a proposition has their character demeaned instead of the proposal e.g. the person is knocked down to devalue the arguement.

The genetic material from the 2nd blood stain was of higher quality than the first, high enough to be placed in CODIS where it is today.

Excellent, so you have good sample. So is it just genetic material, do you know what type of biological material it actually is?

Only a few have acknowledged the possiblity it belongs to an intruder.

It might belong to an intruder it might not, it might just be touch-dna transferred from the gift-wrapping to the underwear.

My thesis is as good as yours, you cannot demonstrate otherwise, an IDI based on touch-dna is very very weak indeed.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,
How does one ad hominem attacked DNA evidence? Ad hominem means the person who is advocating a proposition has their character demeaned instead of the proposal e.g. the person is knocked down to devalue the arguement.


Excellent, so you have good sample. So is it just genetic material, do you know what type of biological material it actually is?


It might belong to an intruder it might not, it might just be touch-dna transferred from the gift-wrapping to the underwear.

My thesis is as good as yours, you cannot demonstrate otherwise, an IDI based on touch-dna is very very weak indeed.


.

ad hominem: 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

The DNA is rejected by the BORG not by intellect or reason, but because they already have a special interest: that PR or JR did it. Having already arrived at that conclusion (that PR or JR did it), explanations for the DNA are limited and force-fit to those that don't change the viewpoint.

Maybe you've acknowledged that the DNA 'might possibly' belonging to an intruder, however intellect and reason suggest that the DNA 'probably' belongs to an intruder because of the context within which the DNA was discovered, and the nature of the specimens themselves. Direct transfer is indicated because skin cells were detected on opposite sides of the waistband, consistent with a removal effort. No other DNA was reported on the waistband, and to claim other DNA exists is ad hominem attack on the lab because its obvious everyone would want to know about all the DNA on the waistband.

RDI should probably make their own discoveries, promote their own evidence and leave the DNA as it is: forensic evidence of an intruder. This is because these various scenarios, like how skin cells migrated from its owner to gift wrap to blood swab taken from inside crotch area of sexual assault victim, amount to an obfuscation of possible truth when direct transfer scenarios are excluded and only non-criminal transfer scenarios are presented. This is because direct transfer has not been ruled out.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yeah, you gotta laugh sometimes.....

MurriFlower,

I am not stating that PR sexually assaulted JonBenet, only that she faked an internal injury to simulate a sexual assault, this would then mask any prior molestation. Which Coroner Meyer opines took place e.g. digital penetration and sexual contact, neither of the latter are consistent with JonBenet's genital injuries.

Well, whether it was "real" or "simulated" is probably of no consequence, it was sexual assault nonetheless. Please post where the Coroner opines on the cause of her genital injuries.

I dont know which underwear you are referring to here, JonBenet's size-6's or her size-12's?

You are being 'cute'. She had underwear on prior to the assault and you say it was missing, then we do not know what size it was, as it was never found according to you. Let's call it the underwear she had on before you say she was re-dressed in the size-12s.

My theory, assumes that the dna at the crime-scene was transferred via touch-dna from the FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper? e.g. the gift wrapping paper had to be removed to access the size-12's.
This touch-dna e.g. the man who wrapped the parcel, was deposited onto the size-12's prior to blood stain. That is the size-12's were clean on JonBenet. There were no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer. The blood stain is a consequence of her genital assault.

Yes, as I said, a neat theory. BUT it doesn't account for the missing items. Not just the remaining 6 pairs of panties, but the gift box they come in and the wrapping paper that you say had the DNA on them. The BDP might have found them if they were right under their noses in the winecellar.

Its likely that JonBenet was already naked from the waist down when she was assaulted in the basement, the status of her size-6 underwear is unknown, but there would be no requirement for size-12's with Wednesday printed on them if the size-6's were only worn and clean?

I expect she was naked or at least the panties and longjohns were pulled down. RDI says she had 'normal' sized panties (presumably size 6) and when these were bloodied by the sexual assault, they say she was re-dressed in clean panties and the longjohns put back on.

JonBenet's underwear were not the only items at the crime-scene to be blood-stained , I believe her nightgown was stained, but there has been no dna results released regarding those other items.

I've not seen where it is stated that the nightgown (this is presumably the Barbie nightgown that was found in the wine cellar that RDI maintain was statically clinging to the blanket that RDI maintains came from the dryer in the basement) was bloodied. Which other items do you refer to?

Apparently the rest of the size-12's turned up in Atlanta a few years later, discovered in an unopened packing crate, and Lin Wood handed that package over to the Boulder DA’s office. As you might think the chain of custody is suspect here?

If this is true, and I don't doubt it, then BPD did not look for them at all did they?

If you prefer the the IDI then the intruder removed the remaining size-12's along with her size-6's as a trophy of sorts?

Maybe there was never any size-12's at all maybe Patsy is lying outright when she states she purchased the size-12's in New York at Bloomingdales. Maybe an accomplice came over with the only pair of underwear that had Wednesday on them, and that person was male, who then assisted in a cover up, thereby transferring dna to the size-12's? We only have Patsy's word that she purchased size-12's at Bloomingdales, her star witness is dead!

It's not a matter of what I prefer, but rather what seems reasonable from what we know.

This would be that JBR put the size 12 underwear on herself that morning. The remaining pairs were in the drawer and that's where they stayed until found and handed in some time later.

Obviously things are improving, the prognosis looks promising, no headache? They do say laughter is the best therapy.

Yes, I do occasionally get a good chuckle on here. Equally, it can be trying at times.

 

[UKGuy]

Yeah, you gotta laugh sometimes.....



Well, whether it was "real" or "simulated" is probably of no consequence, it was sexual assault nonetheless. Please post where the Coroner opines on the cause of her genital injuries.



You are being 'cute'. She had underwear on prior to the assault and you say it was missing, then we do not know what size it was, as it was never found according to you. Let's call it the underwear she had on before you say she was re-dressed in the size-12s.



Yes, as I said, a neat theory. BUT it doesn't account for the missing items. Not just the remaining 6 pairs of panties, but the gift box they come in and the wrapping paper that you say had the DNA on them. The BDP might have found them if they were right under their noses in the winecellar.



I expect she was naked or at least the panties and longjohns were pulled down. RDI says she had 'normal' sized panties (presumably size 6) and when these were bloodied by the sexual assault, they say she was re-dressed in clean panties and the longjohns put back on.



I've not seen where it is stated that the nightgown (this is presumably the Barbie nightgown that was found in the wine cellar that RDI maintain was statically clinging to the blanket that RDI maintains came from the dryer in the basement) was bloodied. Which other items do you refer to?




If this is true, and I don't doubt it, then BPD did not look for them at all did they?



It's not a matter of what I prefer, but rather what seems reasonable from what we know.

This would be that JBR put the size 12 underwear on herself that morning. The remaining pairs were in the drawer and that's where they stayed until found and handed in some time later.



Yes, I do occasionally get a good chuckle on here. Equally, it can be trying at times.

MurriFlower,

Well, whether it was "real" or "simulated" is probably of no consequence, it was sexual assault nonetheless. Please post where the Coroner opines on the cause of her genital injuries.

No problem ...
January 30, 1997 Search Warrant
755 15th Street, Boulder, Colorado
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

This would be that JBR put the size 12 underwear on herself that morning. The remaining pairs were in the drawer and that's where they stayed until found and handed in some time later.

No there was none discovered in the house it was searched.

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six.

e.g. no size-12 underwear in JonBenet's drawer.

I've not seen where it is stated that the nightgown (this is presumably the Barbie nightgown that was found in the wine cellar that RDI maintain was statically clinging to the blanket that RDI maintains came from the dryer in the basement) was bloodied. Which other items do you refer to?

other items are highlighted.

Screen Capture of the DNA lab report shown on the 48 Hours program 1997

DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??

.

 

[MurriFlower]

Which Coroner Meyer opines took place e.g. digital penetration and sexual contact, neither of the latter are consistent with JonBenet's genital injuries.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

The first quote above is the one I questioned. You said that Dr Myer stated that neither the digital penetration nor the sexual contact were consistent with JBRs genital injuries. Perhaps you need to clarify if this is what you meant?

No there was none discovered in the house it was searched.

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

e.g. no size-12 underwear in JonBenet's drawer.

There was also no size 12 panties, box or wrapping paper found in the cellar, but you have glossed over this.

Screen Capture of the DNA lab report shown on the 48 Hours program 1997
Quote:
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??

Hmm, this is interesting. Bloodstain on shirt, panties, blanket and nightgown?

I've never heard the blood on the shirt, blanket or nightgown discussed on here before. So what we are talking about is quite a bit of blood then. Also if there was blood on the blanket, then the blanket must have been already there when the sexual assault occurred, ditto the nightgown (assuming it's the Barbie nightgown discovered in the wine cellar), not retrieved later from the dryer.

Can you please post the link to the screen capture from the 48hours programme?

 

[DeeDee249]

Boxes and wrapping paper WERE found in the wineceller itself; the paper can be seen in the crime scene photo of the room, and they are also stated on the evidence lists. It is listed as "partially wrapped gifts".

 

[MurriFlower]

Boxes and wrapping paper WERE found in the wineceller itself; the paper can be seen in the crime scene photo of the room, and they are also stated on the evidence lists. It is listed as "partially wrapped gifts".

BUT were these the remaining size 12 panties of UKGuys theory? UkGuy states there were none found in the house, but maintains the ones used were part of a wrapped set in the basement. Which is it?

Just thinking also, IF the DNA was transferred from parcel to hand, as he theorises, then there would be matching DNA on the other wrapped parcels. There would also be fingerprints .

 

[DeeDee249]

BUT were these the remaining size 12 panties of UKGuys theory? UkGuy states there were none found in the house, but maintains the ones used were part of a wrapped set in the basement. Which is it?

Just thinking also, IF the DNA was transferred from parcel to hand, as he theorises, then there would be matching DNA on the other wrapped parcels. There would also be fingerprints .

The panties found on JB were part of that wrapped set. They were not found in the basement because either they had been removed from the basement before the police got there or they were hidden and were not found when LE searched the basement.
There may very well have been matching touch DNA on some of those boxes, as well as prints. I feel those boxes and paper were never tested for either. Remember the touch DNA is much more recent. Those boxes and paper no longer exist to be tested for a match. At the time they DID exist, there was no touch DNA found. Though LE was always suspicious of the too-big panties and seemed to be intimating in their questioning of Patsy that the panties on her daughter were put on as staging (by Patsy), I have not seen where they ever subjected the boxes and paper to either fingerprint or DNA testing. If they looked in the boxes and did not see the remaining panties, they may have simply let it go. This was one of their mistakes, because if you read the interviews, you can tell they think the panties came from those boxes. Yet, they did not test the boxes, even for prints. (as far as we know).

 

[madeleine]

Who would rather redress a child in a pair that's way too large,a man or a woman?Wasn't PR a perfectionist when it came to JB being a queen,everything had to be perfect ,right?Men don't pay attention to these details,whatever pair it is ,it's good.

 

[MurriFlower]

The panties found on JB were part of that wrapped set. They were not found in the basement because either they had been removed from the basement before the police got there or they were hidden and were not found when LE searched the basement.
There may very well have been matching touch DNA on some of those boxes, as well as prints. I feel those boxes and paper were never tested for either. Remember the touch DNA is much more recent. Those boxes and paper no longer exist to be tested for a match. At the time they DID exist, there was no touch DNA found. Though LE was always suspicious of the too-big panties and seemed to be intimating in their questioning of Patsy that the panties on her daughter were put on as staging (by Patsy), I have not seen where they ever subjected the boxes and paper to either fingerprint or DNA testing. If they looked in the boxes and did not see the remaining panties, they may have simply let it go. This was one of their mistakes, because if you read the interviews, you can tell they think the panties came from those boxes. Yet, they did not test the boxes, even for prints. (as far as we know).

But why would they be hidden only to be discovered later?

Why does evidence no longer exist?? If they were suspicious of the panties because of the size, it should have been obvious to the Coroner who saw her immediately after the murder. Why wasn't everything in the wine cellar fingerprinted at least if not DNA tested? Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes -- or maybe not!!

 

[MurriFlower]

Who would rather redress a child in a pair that's way too large,a man or a woman?Wasn't PR a perfectionist when it came to JB being a queen,everything had to be perfect ,right?Men don't pay attention to these details,whatever pair it is ,it's good.

But, they were Wednesday's panties!!

 

[UKGuy]

The first quote above is the one I questioned. You said that Dr Myer stated that neither the digital penetration nor the sexual contact were consistent with JBRs genital injuries. Perhaps you need to clarify if this is what you meant?



There was also no size 12 panties, box or wrapping paper found in the cellar, but you have glossed over this.



Hmm, this is interesting. Bloodstain on shirt, panties, blanket and nightgown?

I've never heard the blood on the shirt, blanket or nightgown discussed on here before. So what we are talking about is quite a bit of blood then. Also if there was blood on the blanket, then the blanket must have been already there when the sexual assault occurred, ditto the nightgown (assuming it's the Barbie nightgown discovered in the wine cellar), not retrieved later from the dryer.

Can you please post the link to the screen capture from the 48hours programme?

MurriFlower

There was also no size 12 panties, box or wrapping paper found in the cellar, but you have glossed over this.

No, there is no glossing over I'm simply recounting the forensic evidence. Patsy in her interview, se above, states she purchased size-12 underwear from Bloomingdales New York, further she states these were day-of-the-week type, packed in a see through cellophane container, with days of the week visible. She also states she placed these size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer. The police tell her at same interview that they found no size-12 underwear in that drawer, they were all size-6 or size-4. So prior to JonBenet being killed the size-12 underwear was located somewhere within the Ramsey household. After she was killed the size-12 underwear vanished!

There was wrapping paper in the cellar, see pictures below, and like some of the other bloodied items, which are glossed over by others, the wrapping paper and its status e.g. partially wrapped is similarly glossed over.

e.g. were they still to be sealed and ribbon tied or were they opened to find the size-12's?

See in the wine-cellar the gift at bottom of photo in FAO Schwartz wrapping paper.

A fuller picture is:

You can see JonBenet on xmas-morning with a FAO Schwartz wrapped gift to her left.

You said that Dr Myer stated that neither the digital penetration nor the sexual contact were consistent with JBRs genital injuries. Perhaps you need to clarify if this is what you meant?

I never said that Coroner Meyer had opined that, that was my opinion. Part of my theory is that there was prior molestation e.g. chronic, the molestation on the night of her death is acute. I cited Coroner Meyer to corroborate that there was a prior molestation e.g.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Whether you wish to merge the injury and sexual contact as one episode or that of two is a matter of personal preference. I think he was saying she had been injured digitally but additionally sexual contact had taken place.

Part of the evidence of prior chronic molestation is that a panel pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to her death.

Some people think the killer wore latex gloves and that this is consistent with the birefringement material found internally, only that this inconsistent with the IDI. Since the killer allegedly left his dna at the crime-scene? In his book Steve Thomas describes this foreign material as a splinter and suggests its source was the paintbrush handle?

 

[BBB167893]

Well, whether it was "real" or "simulated" is probably of no consequence, it was sexual assault nonetheless.

Excuse my butting in, but it makes a very big difference whether or not it was real or simulated, because if it's not real, it's not sexual assault. By that, I mean that it was not done for the gratification of the attacker. Ergo, if it's not done for the perp's "jollies," what could it be for?