IDI: Whats your problem?

[Roy23]

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
She only ever made one statement with respect to the possibility of the DNA being from an innocent source, and under the circumstances during which it was made, her motivation is suspect.

In addition to what SD has said, I will add the following.
The record is clear that ML was a very strong IDI proponent throughout her reign as DA.
I believe that any seemingly corroborating evidence regardless of its true probative value would have provided the excuse for her reckless exoneration of the Ramseys.
I do not believe her decision was based on an evaluation of the case as a whole versus simply the "weight" of the DNA.
The fact that her term as DA was running out was also very significant with respect to her actions.

Okay whatever. Get ready for this to get solved and know you did not listen.

 

[MurriFlower]

As few as 30 cells will produce a DNA profile using standard procedures, studies have shown as much as 10 -15 thousand cells can be picked up in a transfer.
Multiple studies have validated secondary transfer.

Does this still sound likely to you cynic? Because it sounds screwy to me.

Lets just go through this.

Ok, PR picks up some secondary transfer DNA somewhere, let's just imagine it might have been when she visited the very last place before returning home. She left the house and closed the door to her friend's home and that's where this unknown male's touch DNA had be placed earlier (say their neighbour for argument's sake, who had just visited).

She then opens the door to the car and gets in. That's two places she touched, the external handle, and the pull handle inside.

She then puts on her seatbelt. That's 3.

She arrives home and opens the car door from the inside. That's 4.

She pushes the door closed. That's 5.

She opens the door to her house. That's 6.

She goes straight upstairs behind JR to JBRs bedroom, touches the bannister rail. That's 7.

She pulls back the sheet/cover and looks under the pillow for the pyjamas. That's 8.

She opens the drawer to find the leggins. That's 9.

She takes JBR's slacks off. That's 10.

She puts the leggings on. That's 11.

Sooooooo, we have someone who basically comes straight back from touching foreign DNA and does nothing except re-dress her daughter, but still she has touched 10 other things plus the leggings. These 10 things are not sterile. All of these things have been touched also by numerous persons including herself.

BUT you maintain, despite this, there is still DNA on both hands, sufficient to leave detectible amounts on both sides of the leggings, but not any other DNA picked up from any of the other 10 items she touched subsequently??

And you're saying this is MORE LIKELY than an unidentified person removing the leggings and leaving his DNA?

Nah, you're joshin' me!!

 

[BBB167893]

Okay whatever. Get ready for this to get solved and know you did not listen.

The man's made some excellent points. They deserve consideration. Your dismissal won't fly.

 

[cynic]

Sooooooo, we have someone who basically comes straight back from touching foreign DNA and does nothing except re-dress her daughter, but still she has touched 10 other things plus the leggings. These 10 things are not sterile. All of these things have been touched also by numerous persons including herself.

BUT you maintain, despite this, there is still DNA on both hands, sufficient to leave detectible amounts on both sides of the leggings, but not any other DNA picked up from any of the other 10 items she touched subsequently??

And you're saying this is MORE LIKELY than an unidentified person removing the leggings and leaving his DNA?

Nah, you're joshin' me!!

No, I’m not joshin you.
There are many variables involved in transfer; shedder profiles, length of contact, pressure of contact etc.
I could also produce a scenario with far fewer points of contact if JR opened and closed doors, PR didn’t hold on to the banister etc.
The transfer may have even occurred from contact with a toy or something within the Ramsey home that may have been played with by one of the kids in the neighborhood earlier in the day.
The transfer may have occurred as a consequence of lax procedures by the coroner.
Depending on what JBR was wearing and when, she may have been responsible for the transfer herself. We are assuming the Ramseys told us the truth about what JBR was wearing, redressing etc.
These are only some of the possibilities.
Some forensic “evidence” remains a mystery after a case is solved. The Janelle Patton case is one example.
No one ever figured out how the DNA of not one but two unidentified females ended up in three locations including her panties and fingernails, but it did, and was completely unrelated to the male offender that committed the crime, who left no DNA evidence on her body or clothing.

 

[MurriFlower]

No, I’m not joshin you.
There are many variables involved in transfer; shedder profiles, length of contact, pressure of contact etc.
I could also produce a scenario with far fewer points of contact if JR opened and closed doors, PR didn’t hold on to the banister etc.
The transfer may have even occurred from contact with a toy or something within the Ramsey home that may have been played with by one of the kids in the neighborhood earlier in the day.
The transfer may have occurred as a consequence of lax procedures by the coroner.
Depending on what JBR was wearing and when, she may have been responsible for the transfer herself. We are assuming the Ramseys told us the truth about what JBR was wearing, redressing etc.
These are only some of the possibilities.
Some forensic “evidence” remains a mystery after a case is solved. The Janelle Patton case is one example.
No one ever figured out how the DNA of not one but two unidentified females ended up in three locations including her panties and fingernails, but it did, and was completely unrelated to the male offender that committed the crime, who left no DNA evidence on her body or clothing.

I cannot see how RDI can maintain that the DNA came from within the house or on any object within the house. There were a certain number of people present that day (children I believe) so it's not as if it were a public place, so all these people would have been tested. That's why if you are talking about innocent DNA transfer, it would have had to come from outside of the home and the Rs possessions.

I do see that you have, in your own mind, decided that there is a real chance that the touch DNA is innocent. To my mind though, it is so much more likely that an intruder deposited it there.

Interesting that you bring the Janelle Patton issue up to demonstrate that DNA does not necessarily need to be deposited on a victim by her murderer. However in this case RDI cannot see how an intruder could have killed JBR and left so little evidence and then choose to dismiss as innocent the DNA evidence that was found in places that her murderer would have touched.

 

[UKGuy]

This DNA argument could go on forever with no clear winner. But just on the story that PR, in putting on the leggings, would have transferred the DNA of some unknown person that she picked up on her hands from goodnessknowswhere to the same points on the leggings that were tested for touch DNA for someone taking off the leggings. Picture in your mind a sleeping child and a parent putting on leggings. (Women who wear panty hose will know the routine). To get them on, you roll them up to the feet and put the feet in first, then you pull each leg up half way and grab the back and front and pull them up. Now picture the IDI removing the leggings. He grabs them on either side and pulls them down. Two different movements.

MurriFlower,

The simplest explanation is usually some variant on the truth e.g. The person who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, which were gift wrapped in FAO Schwartz paper, and since its on record that, despite Patsy's attempt to state otherwise, there were no size-12's found in JonBenet's underwear drawer. Then the redresser must have sourced the size-12's elsewhere in the house e.g. the basement.

Now the redresser probably opened each gift-wrapped package looking for size-12's, this is probably why the packages are described as partially wrapped.

Ramsey warrant dated December 26, 1996
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...7/09/29-2.html
This warrant itemises:
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (55KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (56KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (57KKY)

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

So the redresser finds the size-12's, either using prior knowledge or simple elimination. Now lets assume the same person at FAO Schwartz wrapped these packages then they will all have the same touch-dna deposited which then transfers to the redresser and from there to the size-12's, and then onto the longjohns.

Now what is important about this is that assuming the size-12's to be clean on JonBenet then they should possibly have touch-dna deposited by the redresser and potentially nobody elses touch-dna, disregarding the mythical asian panty packer!

We have been told that unmatched touch-dna was found on the size-12's and the longjohns, but critically, we have not been told of any matching touch-dna found on either the longjohns or size-12's!

Any matching Ramsey touch-dna found on the size-12's would place them at the scene of the crime.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
The simplest explanation is usually some variant on the truth e.g.

Oh UkGuy, what a wonderful grab bag of philosophies you have to share with us.

The person who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, which were gift wrapped in FAO Schwartz paper, and since its on record that, despite Patsy's attempt to state otherwise, there were no size-12's found in JonBenet's underwear drawer. Then the redresser must have sourced the size-12's elsewhere in the house e.g. the basement.

You have the amazing ability to state your own ideas as if they were the truth.

Now the redresser probably opened each gift-wrapped package looking for size-12's, this is probably why the packages are described as partially wrapped.

And an endless supply of imagination.

So the redresser finds the size-12's, either using prior knowledge or simple elimination. Now lets assume the same person at FAO Schwartz wrapped these packages then they will all have the same touch-dna deposited which then transfers to the redresser and from there to the size-12's, and then onto the longjohns. Now what is important about this is that assuming the size-12's to be clean on JonBenet then they should possibly have touch-dna deposited by the redresser and potentially nobody elses touch-dna, disregarding the mythical asian panty packer!

And an uncanny ability to pile assumption upon assumption in order to reach your own conclusions.

We have been told that unmatched touch-dna was found on the size-12's and the longjohns, but critically, we have not been told of any matching touch-dna found on either the longjohns or size-12's!

Any matching Ramsey touch-dna found on the size-12's would place them at the scene of the crime.

And this last one takes the cake. Duh!! PR dressed her. They would not need to state that her DNA was found there because anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence would be able to see that it would be expected to be, and how you can then assume that this would place her at the 'scene of the crime' is quite absurd. You don't work for the BPD by any chance?

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy admitted buying the panties found on her daughter for her niece Jenny. Fact. Patsy claimed to have put those panties in JB's panty drawer, which were NOT in her bedroom dresser, but rather kept in a drawer in a bathroom vanity, which was built-in and not a removable piece of furniture. Yet, LE tells her they have found NO panties that are size 12 in that drawer or anywhere in the house. (BTW, doesn't matter how old Jenny was, or what size panties she wore, or how old a child the size 12 was meant to fit because Patsy has already admitted she bought those size 12s for Jenny). Years later, Patsy sends what are alleged to be the remaining panties to LE.

Then, Patsy admits wrapping presents in the basement and partially opening some presents (she says "she peeked inside to see what was in there").
You bet she did. She peeked in to find the replacement panties to redress JB in so she wouldn't have to risk going up to JB's bathroom in case she woke up BR.

 

[MurriFlower]

Patsy admitted buying the panties found on her daughter for her niece Jenny. Fact.

True, no argument there.

Patsy claimed to have put those panties in JB's panty drawer, which were NOT in her bedroom dresser, but rather kept in a drawer in a bathroom vanity, which was built-in and not a removable piece of furniture.

Not in the interview I read. It seemed that they 'migrated' there, presumably via JBR 'claiming' them. PR really had no idea about how they got there and did not think it was very important. Neither do I. The idea that someone redressed her in these is a myth.

Yet, LE tells her they have found NO panties that are size 12 in that drawer or anywhere in the house. LE.

BPD not being able to find them is hardly evidence they weren't there LOL. I mean, where is their evidence that they were in fact size 12? Is it like the fibers? We say so, therefore you have to explain it to us?

(BTW, doesn't matter how old Jenny was, or what size panties she wore, or how old a child the size 12 was meant to fit because Patsy has already admitted she bought those size 12s for Jenny). Years later, Patsy sends what are alleged to be the remaining panties to

I agree, but we constantly hear RDI bringing up the 'oversized panties' as if they would have fallen off if she stood up. Really, they probably wouldn't have been a couple of inches wider in the waist than her usual size, and we all know that new elastic is so much firmer than old, so I don't see it as a problem. Children grow quickly and underwear is hardly the type of clothing that is a perfect fit, so she probably wore quite a range of sizes without difficulty. I think I demonstrated that they were not oversized. Another myth debunked.

Then, Patsy admits wrapping presents in the basement and partially opening some presents (she says "she peeked inside to see what was in there").

She was apparently a person who bought things for her family when she saw them. I do that too. I often forget what I bought and who it was for, especially if it is store gift wrapped, so you have to open them to look inside. Doesn't mean she killed her daughter.

You bet she did. She peeked in to find the replacement panties to redress JB in so she wouldn't have to risk going up to JB's bathroom in case she woke up BR.

Nonsense!

 

[DeeDee249]

The interview just above has Patsy saying she put the panties in there, so they were "fair game" (her words). Panties don't "migrate" by themselves, and I doubt JB did it. If those panties were intended as a gift for Jenny and ended up in JB's drawer, it was Patsy who put them there.

Patsy also ADMITS in that same interview that she opened some of the boxes to peek inside.

I shop for Christmas all year, too. But I put name tags on the boxes. I do this no matter when I wrap the boxes. One thing I'd have liked to see- did LE take note of whether those partially opened gifts had name tags? Because if one of them said "Jenny" we'd have a pretty good lock on where the panties came from. And no SFF or intruder would know Patsy bought those panties for Jenny.

 

[MurriFlower]

The interview just above has Patsy saying she put the panties in there, so they were "fair game" (her words). Panties don't "migrate" by themselves, and I doubt JB did it. If those panties were intended as a gift for Jenny and ended up in JB's drawer, it was Patsy who put them there.

THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

Well, she did put them there. Good Oh! Well she must have killed her then, that settles it!! Really this is just so much BS. The only way the size of the panties makes the slightest bit of difference is in the eyes of RDI. So desparate are they to add to their meagre cache of 'evidence' they sieze upon the most insignificant things to support their theory.

Patsy also ADMITS in that same interview that she opened some of the boxes to peek inside.

SHE ADMITS opening her own boxes and LOOKING INSIDE!! OMG!! Another crime to add to allowing her daughter to wear her cousins panties.

I shop for Christmas all year, too. But I put name tags on the boxes. I do this no matter when I wrap the boxes. One thing I'd have liked to see- did LE take note of whether those partially opened gifts had name tags? Because if one of them said "Jenny" we'd have a pretty good lock on where the panties came from. And no SFF or intruder would know Patsy bought those panties for Jenny.

We have yet to establish that they were wrapped or in the basement at all. You were prepared to accept a second ago that PR put them in the underwear drawer (which you say was incriminating), now when it suits you, you've got them in the cellar (also incriminating according to you). They can't be in two places.

 

[DeeDee249]

Neither saying she put the panties in the drawer nor peeking in boxes make her a killer. But taken in context (doesn't IDI talk about context as far as the DNA?) and with the good chance that she was not being completely truthful just add to the list of things she seemed to be less than truthful about.
Here is what makes it suspicious. She bought the panties found on her daughter. She bought them as a gift for someone else. She wrapped gifts in the basement, and partially opened gifts were found in the basement. There is a good probability that the panties on JB, as they were intended as a gift, were wrapped as a gift and were in the basement on the night JB died.
No one but Patsy knew that, possibly JR if she told him. If you've seen the photos of the wineceller, where gift box paper can be seen in a crime photo, you'd know that someone like Patsy would never put gifts in that moldy, dirty room, wrapped or not, especially with so many other places in the basement to put them.
I stand behind my comment that no SFF or intruder would have known that there were girl's panties wrapped in a box in the basement, where JB was placed. Either JB had the panties on when she was dressed for bed, or some intruder had the knowledge that unlike most people who keep their underwear in a bedroom, JB's were in her bathroom and they took the chance of getting a pair from there, risking waking her brother or parents, or risking her parents still being awake and walking around. So- taken in context, Patsy's comments place her within the realm of possibility of having put THOSE panties on her daughter, either before or after death.
An innocent explanation for the panties would go like this: Patsy admits buying the panties for her niece, but gives them to JB anyway. Patsy admits allowing JB to wear panties that did not fit, despite JB's persistent wetting and soiling, which render such large panties useless. (too- big leg holes and drooping waist mean urine and feces would not be contained in them-please see Jayelles's photo of the same panties on a model of a 6-year old girl's body). Patsy admits that JB wore the panties that day. NO opened gift boxes are found in the basement. The other 6 pairs of the set are found where Patsy said they were- in JB's panty drawer.
But it didn't happen that way.

 

[MurriFlower]

Neither saying she put the panties in the drawer nor peeking in boxes make her a killer. But taken in context (doesn't IDI talk about context as far as the DNA?) and with the good chance that she was not being completely truthful just add to the list of things she seemed to be less than truthful about.

Taken in context?? Taken in context, the panties were the least of PR's problems. Someone had murdered her daughter, and the cops were interested in the size of her panties?? She was much more tolerant than I would have been under the circumstances.

Here is what makes it suspicious. She bought the panties found on her daughter. She bought them as a gift for someone else. She wrapped gifts in the basement, and partially opened gifts were found in the basement. There is a good probability that the panties on JB, as they were intended as a gift, were wrapped as a gift and were in the basement on the night JB died.
No one but Patsy knew that, possibly JR if she told him. If you've seen the photos of the wineceller, where gift box paper can be seen in a crime photo, you'd know that someone like Patsy would never put gifts in that moldy, dirty room, wrapped or not, especially with so many other places in the basement to put them.

Whoa!! She bought a gift for her niece. Gifts were wrapped in the basement. Some of these gifts were partially opened. PR was the only one who knew. Therefore, she was the killer??

Nope, Nope, Nope.
She bought a gift for her niece that ended up not being given, and her daughter got it instead.
There is no relationship between the panties and the gifts in the basement. The panties were not wrapped, they were not in the basement, no one opened the wrapping partially to find the panties because they were not wrapped and not in the basement. Ergo, PR did not kill her daughter.

How's about, THE PANTIES ARE NOT IMPLICATED IN ANY WAY IN HER DEATH, just like the doll and the bear. Simply RDI imagination.

I stand behind my comment that no SFF or intruder would have known that there were girl's panties wrapped in a box in the basement, where JB was placed. Either JB had the panties on when she was dressed for bed, or some intruder had the knowledge that unlike most people who keep their underwear in a bedroom, JB's were in her bathroom and they took the chance of getting a pair from there, risking waking her brother or parents, or risking her parents still being awake and walking around. So- taken in context, Patsy's comments place her within the realm of possibility of having put THOSE panties on her daughter, either before or after death.

Nope, JBR put them on, an intruder pulled them down to molest her and then pulled them back up again. All the rest is a fairy story.

An innocent explanation for the panties would go like this: Patsy admits buying the panties for her niece, but gives them to JB anyway. Patsy admits allowing JB to wear panties that did not fit, despite JB's persistent wetting and soiling, which render such large panties useless. (too- big leg holes and drooping waist mean urine and feces would not be contained in them-please see Jayelles's photo of the same panties on a model of a 6-year old girl's body). Patsy admits that JB wore the panties that day. NO opened gift boxes are found in the basement. The other 6 pairs of the set are found where Patsy said they were- in JB's panty drawer.
But it didn't happen that way.

I don't think JBR actually crapped in her pants, she just didn't wipe very well, so they all had 'GT stripes' on them. Pretty normal for kids that age.

If the panties were gift wrapped in the basement, then the remnants of either the panties (the other 6 pairs), the box they were in, or the opened and empty packaging would have been left behind. Were any such things found? Or did PP take these out with all the other stuff you are accusing her of removing ?? LOLOL

 

[UKGuy]

Neither saying she put the panties in the drawer nor peeking in boxes make her a killer. But taken in context (doesn't IDI talk about context as far as the DNA?) and with the good chance that she was not being completely truthful just add to the list of things she seemed to be less than truthful about.
Here is what makes it suspicious. She bought the panties found on her daughter. She bought them as a gift for someone else. She wrapped gifts in the basement, and partially opened gifts were found in the basement. There is a good probability that the panties on JB, as they were intended as a gift, were wrapped as a gift and were in the basement on the night JB died.
No one but Patsy knew that, possibly JR if she told him. If you've seen the photos of the wineceller, where gift box paper can be seen in a crime photo, you'd know that someone like Patsy would never put gifts in that moldy, dirty room, wrapped or not, especially with so many other places in the basement to put them.
I stand behind my comment that no SFF or intruder would have known that there were girl's panties wrapped in a box in the basement, where JB was placed. Either JB had the panties on when she was dressed for bed, or some intruder had the knowledge that unlike most people who keep their underwear in a bedroom, JB's were in her bathroom and they took the chance of getting a pair from there, risking waking her brother or parents, or risking her parents still being awake and walking around. So- taken in context, Patsy's comments place her within the realm of possibility of having put THOSE panties on her daughter, either before or after death.
An innocent explanation for the panties would go like this: Patsy admits buying the panties for her niece, but gives them to JB anyway. Patsy admits allowing JB to wear panties that did not fit, despite JB's persistent wetting and soiling, which render such large panties useless. (too- big leg holes and drooping waist mean urine and feces would not be contained in them-please see Jayelles's photo of the same panties on a model of a 6-year old girl's body). Patsy admits that JB wore the panties that day. NO opened gift boxes are found in the basement. The other 6 pairs of the set are found where Patsy said they were- in JB's panty drawer.
But it didn't happen that way.

DeeDee249,

There is enough circumstantial evidence to place Patsy at the scene of the crime e.g. size-12's, fibers from her jacket embedded into the garrote, fibers on the underside of the duct-tape.

So its reasonable to assume that its Patsy who redressed JonBenet, her touch-dna discovered on the size-12's would confirm this? Its also safe to assume it was Patsy who created the garrote since she is familair with the paint-tote and brushes, remember she was painting days bfore christmas. Also following on from this it seems likely that Patsy inserted the paintbrush inside JonBenet, inflicting the acute injuries noted at the autopsy e.g.

IV. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

V. Abrasions of left lower back and posterior left lower leg

VI. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa

VII. Ligature of right wrist

and ...

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular
congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The
smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the
vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with
underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red
blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is
birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate
is not seen.

The birefringent foreign material has likely ben transferred either from Patsy's finger, or from the paintbrush-handle?


So it looks like it's Patsy was the person who ended JonBenet's life, and created the staged crime-scene?

But what of John and his fibers found on JonBenet's person, did John play a role in the staging if so why?

This is the critical question, other pathologists opined on chronic molestation, but this need not implicate John, that may be some other family or extended family member, or both?

That is John may have been wiping JonBenet down for someone else e.g. Burke, and Patsy may have been staging to deflect attention away from Burke?

Why would Patsy stage a sexual assault then obscure it with size-12's, very deliberately done? I reckon she knows about a prior molestation so she is masking it with fake crime-scene evidence.

This suggests to me that rather than a bedwetting scenario being the trigger for JonBenet's death it was actually a sexual assault that went badly wrong either with her assailant loosing it, resulting in JonBenet's head injury, or JonBenet fell to the ground hitting her head as a consequence of her position in some molestation scenario?

That is someone molested JonBenet in some manner, followed by the head injury, then an initial staging. So was it this former staging that John and Patsy were attempting to obscure and which is corroborated by some of their forensic evidence being left at the scene of the crime?

It could be that Burke is the guilty party, hence his removal from the house ASAP the next morning, and his aquiesence in pretending to be asleep etc?

From the foregoing I reckon we can safely conclude that Patsy was aware that JonBenet had been molested by some family member(s) prior to the night of her death!

And that at some point Patsy realized that the size-12's were a smoking-gun, since she said she bought them, placed them into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Yet no size-12's were found in the house. Did the intruder return upstairs to remove only JonBenet's size-12's underwear, and her worn size-6 underwear?

Of course not, hence they were magically discovered in a Ramsey packing crate, and returned to make up the forensic-evidence deficit.

What close family would Patsy cover for, and would this include John, and is there any Ramsey touch-dna on the size-12's that JonBenet was found wearing?


.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Taken in context?? Taken in context, the panties were the least of PR's problems. Someone had murdered her daughter, and the cops were interested in the size of her panties?? She was much more tolerant than I would have been under the circumstances.



Whoa!! She bought a gift for her niece. Gifts were wrapped in the basement. Some of these gifts were partially opened. PR was the only one who knew. Therefore, she was the killer??

Nope, Nope, Nope.
She bought a gift for her niece that ended up not being given, and her daughter got it instead.
There is no relationship between the panties and the gifts in the basement. The panties were not wrapped, they were not in the basement, no one opened the wrapping partially to find the panties because they were not wrapped and not in the basement. Ergo, PR did not kill her daughter.

How's about, THE PANTIES ARE NOT IMPLICATED IN ANY WAY IN HER DEATH, just like the doll and the bear. Simply RDI imagination.



Nope, JBR put them on, an intruder pulled them down to molest her and then pulled them back up again. All the rest is a fairy story.



I don't think JBR actually crapped in her pants, she just didn't wipe very well, so they all had 'GT stripes' on them. Pretty normal for kids that age.

If the panties were gift wrapped in the basement, then the remnants of either the panties (the other 6 pairs), the box they were in, or the opened and empty packaging would have been left behind. Were any such things found? Or did PP take these out with all the other stuff you are accusing her of removing ?? LOLOL

MurriFlower,

I don't think JBR actually crapped in her pants, she just didn't wipe very well, so they all had 'GT stripes' on them. Pretty normal for kids that age.

This was not the opinion of Holly Smith an investigator with the Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team. Her account of her visit to JonBenet's bedroom is as follows:

She started, as always, with a visit to the child’s bedroom.

"That's a really important piece of getting a real feel for a family," Smith explains.

With portfolio pictures galore and closets full of JonBenet’s elaborate pageant outfits, Smith says she had a hard time getting a fell for who the little girl really was, even in her bedroom.

She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

Uisng phrases like Simply RDI imagination or fairy story is not a theory nor does it help explain the evidence.

.

 

[Ames]

I cannot see how RDI can maintain that the DNA came from within the house or on any object within the house. There were a certain number of people present that day (children I believe) so it's not as if it were a public place, so all these people would have been tested. That's why if you are talking about innocent DNA transfer, it would have had to come from outside of the home and the Rs possessions.

I do see that you have, in your own mind, decided that there is a real chance that the touch DNA is innocent. To my mind though, it is so much more likely that an intruder deposited it there.

Interesting that you bring the Janelle Patton issue up to demonstrate that DNA does not necessarily need to be deposited on a victim by her murderer. However in this case RDI cannot see how an intruder could have killed JBR and left so little evidence and then choose to dismiss as innocent the DNA evidence that was found in places that her murderer would have touched.

Here is something interesting that I found about DNA contamination....


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html

This is just a snippet....click on link abover to read the whole article.....

The murderer dubbed the Phantom of Heilbronn had been baffling German investigators for two years. The criminal was a rarity, a female serial killer, and a very busy one: police had linked DNA evidence from 40 crimes — including the infamous homicide of a policewoman in the southern German town of Heilbronn — to the same woman.
Police had found her DNA on items ranging from a cookie to a heroin syringe to a stolen car. They had put a $400,000 reward on her head. Profilers from around Europe were called in to help hunt her down. The police even consulted diviners and fortune-tellers in hopes of discovering her identity. The papers declared the case "the most mysterious serial crime of the past century." (See pictures of fighting crime.)
The police thought they'd been looking everywhere. But it turns out they should have been looking down — at the cotton swabs they were using to collect DNA samples. On March 26, German police revealed that the cotton swabs they use may have all been contaminated by the same worker at a factory in Austria — and that the Phantom of Heilbronn never existed.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html#ixzz0xCzT2Vew




--------------------------

Just proves that contamination of DNA....DOES happen. The Touch DNA found on JB's leggings...means NOTHING!! Patsy's fibers from the sweater/jacket that she was wearing the night of the murder.... found entwined in the garrote, on the sticky side of the tape over JB's mouth, inside the paint tote, on the blanket covering JB's dead body....means there was no intruder. I do not for one second believe that the fibers from Patsy's sweater/jacket....floated down to that WC and hopped onto those things mentioned above...all by themselves. In an interview....Patsy...in her OWN words...said that she had never painted while wearing that sweater/jacket....SOOOO....how did those fibers end up in the same location as the crime scene? They were on the sweater that Patsy was wearing the night of the murder, when she was in the WC....trying to cover up her daughter's murder....that is how. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
​

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Here is something interesting that I found about DNA contamination....


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html

This is just a snippet....click on link abover to read the whole article.....

The murderer dubbed the Phantom of Heilbronn had been baffling German investigators for two years. The criminal was a rarity, a female serial killer, and a very busy one: police had linked DNA evidence from 40 crimes — including the infamous homicide of a policewoman in the southern German town of Heilbronn — to the same woman.
Police had found her DNA on items ranging from a cookie to a heroin syringe to a stolen car. They had put a $400,000 reward on her head. Profilers from around Europe were called in to help hunt her down. The police even consulted diviners and fortune-tellers in hopes of discovering her identity. The papers declared the case "the most mysterious serial crime of the past century." (See pictures of fighting crime.)
The police thought they'd been looking everywhere. But it turns out they should have been looking down — at the cotton swabs they were using to collect DNA samples. On March 26, German police revealed that the cotton swabs they use may have all been contaminated by the same worker at a factory in Austria — and that the Phantom of Heilbronn never existed. ​

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html#ixzz0xCzT2Vew​

--------------------------​

Just proves that contamination of DNA....DOES happen. The Touch DNA found on JB's leggings...means NOTHING!! Patsy's fibers from the sweater/jacket that she was wearing the night of the murder.... found entwined in the garrote, on the sticky side of the tape over JB's mouth, inside the paint tote, on the blanket covering JB's dead body....means there was no intruder. I do not for one second believe that the fibers from Patsy's sweater/jacket....floated down to that WC and hopped onto those things mentioned above...all by themselves. In an interview....Patsy...in her OWN words...said that she had never painted while wearing that sweater/jacket....SOOOO....how did those fibers end up in the same location as the crime scene? They were on the sweater that Patsy was wearing the night of the murder, when she was in the WC....trying to cover up her daughter's murder....that is how. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. ​

And then there's the other side of the coin...all those criminal cases solved by DNA evidence. All those people sent to prison...

I suggest improving your perspective by trying this thought experiment. Heck, you could actually do it if you've got the money:

Imagine your own waistband on an article of clothing you've worn. Imagine your own skin cells on it. Not too hard, right? Now, imagine your family member's skin cells on it. But wait: its pretty clear that touch DNA washes out in the laundry, so if your family member's skin cells are on it, its probably because your family member touched your waistband, right? Or, it could be you had their skin cells on your fingers and put it there yourself.

Lets take this a step further. Lets say that skin cells from someone in your closest circle of friends are on your waistband. In two places. Aren't you getting curious as to how your friend's skin cells got there? Assuming your friend never made direct contact of which you're aware, his/her skin cells could be again placed there by your own fingers.

OK hang on with this almost done. Suppose a complete stranger's skin cells are on your waistband. If the complete stranger didn't make direct contact, then how did the skin cells get in two places? Did you have these skin cells on your own fingers?


Now, lets send this article of clothing with the waistband and have it tested for touch DNA. That is, tested for skin cells that are present in enough quantity for a CODIS profile and DNA that can be processed like blood or semen in the usual way (not LCN DNA).

Test results are back. Bada bing, no unknown male DNA on your waistband in even one place. What about that? How come JBR has unknown male DNA on her waistband in two places and you have none? Could it be because she was a victim of a sexual assault, and the offender inadvertantly deposited skin cells? Of course it is! This is far and away the most likely solution, eclipsing every scenario RDI has yet to come up with that places these skin cells there by non-criminal means.

Please don't forget that we already knew a criminal handled JBR's longjohns that night. This is a given, a case fact. Inarguable. IOW they were looking for THE criminal that THEY KNOW HAD TO HANDLE JBR's longjohns. In doing so, they found skin cells.

Hope this helps...

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

This was not the opinion of Holly Smith an investigator with the Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team. Her account of her visit to JonBenet's bedroom is as follows:
[/QUOTE

Nothing in the quote from Smith contradicts what I said. However, she does imply that she 'soiled herself, that is crapped her pants, when she just didn't wipe herself properly. This is on the record. "Fecal material" left in the pants in her drawer to me just means they were either replaced dirty or they weren't washed adequately. She was just 6 years old for goodness sake. Ive seen quite a few adult underpants in the wash with GT stripes on them too, and no body suggested they were being molested!!

Uisng phrases like Simply RDI imagination or fairy story is not a theory nor does it help explain the evidence.

That is the best I can do without getting really angry about some of the guff you guys sprout.

 

[joeskidbeck]

It's not imagination that this little girl was found in a pair of panties that would have fallen off her were she able to stand up. She had them on. She did not put them on herself. No size confusion for me. She was 6 years old. The panties were purchased for a 12 year old. Please, If you haven't seen Jayelles demonstration:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128"](Girls 12-14) "Bloomies" Modeled On A Six-Year-Old The Same Size As JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[Zak]

And then there's the other side of the coin...all those criminal cases solved by DNA evidence. All those people sent to prison...

I suggest improving your perspective by trying this thought experiment. Heck, you could actually do it if you've got the money:

Imagine your own waistband on an article of clothing you've worn. Imagine your own skin cells on it. Not too hard, right? Now, imagine your family member's skin cells on it. But wait: its pretty clear that touch DNA washes out in the laundry, so if your family member's skin cells are on it, its probably because your family member touched your waistband, right? Or, it could be you had their skin cells on your fingers and put it there yourself.

Lets take this a step further. Lets say that skin cells from someone in your closest circle of friends are on your waistband. In two places. Aren't you getting curious as to how your friend's skin cells got there? Assuming your friend never made direct contact of which you're aware, his/her skin cells could be again placed there by your own fingers.

OK hang on with this almost done. Suppose a complete stranger's skin cells are on your waistband. If the complete stranger didn't make direct contact, then how did the skin cells get in two places? Did you have these skin cells on your own fingers?


Now, lets send this article of clothing with the waistband and have it tested for touch DNA. That is, tested for skin cells that are present in enough quantity for a CODIS profile and DNA that can be processed like blood or semen in the usual way (not LCN DNA).

Test results are back. Bada bing, no unknown male DNA on your waistband in even one place. What about that? How come JBR has unknown male DNA on her waistband in two places and you have none? Could it be because she was a victim of a sexual assault, and the offender inadvertantly deposited skin cells? Of course it is! This is far and away the most likely solution, eclipsing every scenario RDI has yet to come up with that places these skin cells there by non-criminal means.

Please don't forget that we already knew a criminal handled JBR's longjohns that night. This is a given, a case fact. Inarguable. IOW they were looking for THE criminal that THEY KNOW HAD TO HANDLE JBR's longjohns. In doing so, they found skin cells.

Hope this helps...

But wait..... what if the test results are a Bada bing and come back with unknown DNA?????

I was just in Vegas. I can only imagine how many strangers DNA I had on my body and clothes while there. Everytime I touched a doorknob or elevator button and then touched something I was wearing or a part of my own skin, I bet that I transfered an unknown DNA onto myself. Each time I was sitting at a slot machine touching the buttons and then reached into my pocket for more money, I bet I transferred unknown DNA onto myself and everything else that I touched. When I went to the restroom and entered the stall I had to push the door open and then touch the lock as I was shutting it and then the waistband of my pants. Now suppose I was murdered out there. How much touch DNA do you think would be on my body? Think about in my hotel room how much DNA was on the bedding alone. Everytime I sat on that bedspread and then touched my clothes I'd bet that I had a strangers DNA on my hands and clothes.

What I don't understand is why all of you IDI's out there will not even consider the possibilty that JBR got out of her bed when they got home from the White's (if she was ever in it) and touched some new toys then went to use the bathroom and transferred the DNA onto her own waistband as she pulled down her longjohn bottoms. Then she had to pull down her panties and may have touched her own skin thus transferring an unknown DNA. Why is this so out of the question?

I may be RDI, but I am always open to the possibility of IDI. I am a reasonable person willing to consider all thoughts and idea's. It makes no difference to me what the DA or LE say about the DNA or any other evidence......until the DNA owner is found then everyone is fair game to discuss.