JonBenet's Dream Team

[Jane Osa]

I read on the 'burke did it' webpage you can easily google (no idea how old it is) the idea that the big underwear was to go over diaper pull-ups.....however, I thought I remembered Patsy saying something like they were to be sent to someone else?

Also, did I read that a gift in the basement was open & that gift contained large underwear...if true then our intruder has X-ray vision!

 

[DeeDee249]

Can experts say how long DNA be in the place that it was found...And can they say if it was put at the same time....Cause how ST book in his book it was even hard for them to get the LE to give fringprints..

There is no exact way to tell when DNA was left, but as it ages it does degrade to the point of not being able to extract all the markers. I don't think there is a way to tell if it was left at the same time as other DNA.

Interesting point: Some DNA under certain circumstances can survive many years. Some ancient Egyptian mummies have been identified as being related on the basis of DNA that can still be extracted from their cells. Obviously this DNA is incomplete, but family members can still be linked that way.
The Jurassic Park movies weren't all that implausible, though no viable DNA (that could be cloned) has been obtained from something that ancient.

 

[DeeDee249]

I read on the 'burke did it' webpage you can easily google (no idea how old it is) the idea that the big underwear was to go over diaper pull-ups.....however, I thought I remembered Patsy saying something like they were to be sent to someone else?

Also, did I read that a gift in the basement was open & that gift contained large underwear...if true then our intruder has X-ray vision!

Patsy told LE she bought the size 12 Bloomies undies set as a Christmas gift for her niece Jenny, who was a few years older than JB.
One of the big RDI points in my mind is the fact that LE found unwrapped gifts in the basement wineceller. If you have ever seen photos of that room, it is really a filthy little place. I can't imagine a parent hiding gifts there, but there was a latch on the door high up where kids can't reach it. Actually, it was this very latch that the first police officer on the scene, Officer French, did not notice. He couldn't budge the door, and never looked to see why. If he had, JR would never have "found" JB and contaminated the crime scene.
More unbelievably, when asked to explain the partially unwrapped gifts in the crime scene photos, Patsy said she was WRAPPING gifts there and hadn't finished. Now...anyone who has ever wrapped a box knows that you don't stop in the middle of wrapping an individual box. How long does it take to wrap one box? A minute or 2? If you were wrapping several, you might leave some unwrapped but not PARTIALLY wrapped. You'd complete the box. Patsy told LE she was wrapping gifts in the wineceller. Patsy definitely wanted to give the impression that they weren't UNWRAPPED boxes, because then it could be inferred that the Rs were the only ones who would know that there was a new set of girls' panties right there in the basement. No need to go up to JB's room and risk waking her brother. Just use Jenny's gift panties.
Patsy was careful of her dress, hair, makeup. No WAY she'd have been in that filthy, moldy room wrapping gifts. On what? There was no table or workbench in there. She'd never be wrapping them on the filthy floor. No woman, no matter how untidy, would wrap gifts in a dirty, moldy basement room.

 

[Jane Osa]

Now, if I were officer French on the scene of a possible kidnapping and/or murder by the parents & I couldn't get in the basement door & didn't know 'why' I'd knock that door down any which way! It is utterly bizarre to me that, he essentially shrugged & moved on.

I wonder how high the latch was - could Burke reach it....?
I still think the kids could have been down there...especially with the 'santa' visit...maybe they knew there were presents in there & decided to raid....

 

[DeeDee249]

Now, if I were officer French on the scene of a possible kidnapping and/or murder by the parents & I couldn't get in the basement door & didn't know 'why' I'd knock that door down any which way! It is utterly bizarre to me that, he essentially shrugged & moved on.

I wonder how high the latch was - could Burke reach it....?
I still think the kids could have been down there...especially with the 'santa' visit...maybe they knew there were presents in there & decided to raid....

BR couldn't have reached it without standing on something, but there were things to climb on, including a chair found outside the train room door. This was right next door to where JB was found. So, yes, a boy that age could have reached the latch standing on something like a chair.

 

[Ravyn]

But safe bet that BR didn't stand on the chair cause his fingerprints was not found on the door...PR's was and on the ACR so was MR's...Now since I been looking at all different sites..I'm really wonder why JR got lawyers right away for his older children cause in a couple states away geez, why such alibis....Really stating to believe Joe Barnhill about seeing JAR on Christmas Day....

 

[Ravyn]

Now thanks to another poster asking what was the big deal for the R's to call 911 before 6:00am...Maybe cause JAR was there and to keep him out of it the pilot was in transit getting JAR away..At this time it is possible JR was thinking about the phone records so a quick call to the pilot..And maybe this is why the pilot without saying who knew it was an inside job...Just a thought here

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
I got to thinking about that. It goes with what I said above. If they had called 911 without finding the note first, wouldn't it look a little odd to the police that they didn't find it first, since it was in plain sight in the same area where the 911 call was made?

The RN would of course have been somewhere else, though it would have been weird if it was not in plain sight.

Indeed.

SuperDave wrote:
just how clearly were the Rs supposed to have been thinking in the first place?

Not very clearly I suppose.

You said it!

SuperDave wrote:
Heck of a coincidence, though, wouldn't you say?

I`m not familiar with the crime rates of Atlanta. Why did he make up such a story?

SOMETHING had to explain where PR's jewelry went. The jewelry which several police experts just HAPPEN to think caused the marks on JB's body. HMM!

SuperDave wrote:
I figure if they're innocent, no need to switch. No need for a whole lot of the other inconsistencies.

I figure since they were prime suspects, they had to defend themselves and the possibility of an intruder entering the house. Yes, some inconsistensies bother me.

Bothered me, too.

SuperDave wrote:
Very good. I have just the website for you.
Go ahead and provide the link.

No sweat: http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html Make no mistake: if the coroner had come to LS and said, "I think such-and-such made these marks, but the cops won't listen to me. Maybe you will," I could understand the theory that one was used. But that's not what happened. Quite the reverse, actually.

I`d like to ask a quick question first: could the big red mark beside her throat be from a stun gun?

Never given it much thought. I'd say unlikely.

Since it`s ok to speculate, what if the double marks were from a stun gun that was not yet switched on, or working correctly? Perhaps it was an inexperienced user..even first-timer. Or if the stun gun didn`t work at all and after that came the head blow.

I think if that were the case, the jabbing would cause bruises, not scratches.

 

[BBB167893]

Can experts say how long DNA be in the place that it was found...And can they say if it was put at the same time....

A Big NO on both counts!

 

[Ravyn]

Ok still trying to understand about touch DNA...Let say WHAT IF Lou Smit or Steve Thomas by accident touch the panties and longjohns and never gave DNA samples would this explain the forgien male DNA...Just trying to understand not saying it was these two gentlemen....

 

[BBB167893]

Ok still trying to understand about touch DNA...Let say WHAT IF Lou Smit or Steve Thomas by accident touch the panties and longjohns and never gave DNA samples would this explain the foreign male DNA...Just trying to understand not saying it was these two gentlemen....

Wouldn't even have to be them.

 

[Ravyn]

Thanks SD, that is what I was trying to understand here..LOL just used two of the main people in the case to find out...I was going to use Alex Hunter figure he would be to scared to get that close...

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks SD, that is what I was trying to understand here..LOL just used two of the main people in the case to find out...I was going to use Alex Hunter figure he would be to scared to get that close...

Glad I could help.

 

[madeleine]

Ok still trying to understand about touch DNA...Let say WHAT IF Lou Smit or Steve Thomas by accident touch the panties and longjohns and never gave DNA samples would this explain the forgien male DNA...Just trying to understand not saying it was these two gentlemen....

I'm stil, trying to understand this:

"Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. "

ML

Unknown to HER doesn't mean unknown to the R......

 

[madeleine]

She also says

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/da-mary-lacys-statement-ramsey-exoneration/?partner=RSS

We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder.


This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.



Maybe she didn't try hard enough
Guess it comes to whether you trust what she's saying or not,I personally don't
And ,Mary,unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

 

[madeleine]

She rejected everything else
contamination,transfer,R's having an accomplice......why

 

[BBB167893]

She rejected everything else
contamination,transfer,R's having an accomplice......why

Why indeed.

 

[Jane Osa]

I can't help but think their lies are directly related OR the just didn't know how to vary from the script.

It starts - Jonbenet asleep & taken to bed....LIE #1 - at the very least the first lie.

It ends with lying that Burke was awake - he is wondering what's happening in the 911 phone call.

Now, I'm always trying to link such things - in their mind - Jonbenet MUST be asleep, Burke also, MUST be asleep...why, or what, do these lies further? It could be just they had agreed on that story - they overlooked, quite naturally, I'd think - especially in an 'accident' that she had eaten some pineapple. But, why did they just not say - yes, right, she did awaken & she was up briefly but went back to bed - something simple....but, no - they deny it, say they have no recollection..yet their fingerprints are all over it & fact is they contradict themselves, Burkes says shes awake, & FACT is she was - she ate pineapple. I don't know - I keep trying to keep it simple...so, I try to reduce it - ie, why would Jonbenet being asleep be a necessity to their minds - ?

Why lie about Burke...why not say - oh, he was woken up with the commotion,etc. But, no - he was asleep - LIE! Ramseys are up to their yin-yang with it all....$ for us 'capitalist' theorists sure talks, don't it?

 

[Jane Osa]

"How curious that no DNA tests, or any tests for that matter, had been taken of the blood found under JonBenet's fingernails. But even without the DNA or blood tests, that blood still tells us something important: the little girl had fought back, and scratched the face of her attacker." This is a quote from an article in 2007.....what are they talking about with regard to fingernails, etc. I thought it was common knowledge she did NOT fight...? Why on earth can no one seem to get the facts straight - ? My mea culpa is I'm not an investigative or otherwise journalist! So, did she fight? Didn't she? I understand that the DNA was in a state of degradation...but, still....she either was conscious/fighting or not...

Secondly, this whole touch DNA doesn't add up in the sense that there would be DNA 'everywhere' so to speak. If the 'intruder' were wearing gloves I presume there would be zero 'foreign' DNA and if there is ANY that means no gloves/protection on their part - so, it should be EVERYWHERE - ? Right? I think I'm not understanding something here.......

Eesh - can't even understand myself!

Okay - intruder = DNA = by 'touch' ultra-sensitive methods. Why is there not more?

Point B - intruder = left DNA that is measurable via touch - why not more DNA?

Is the idea that the intruder didn't have gloves, etc. at some point & left 'prints' - ? If not, it makes no sense that there would be ultra-sensitive markers but nothing 'obvious' to collect.....ok, maybe that made sense?
Goodnight!

 

[Ravyn]

The thing that gets me Mary Lacy sent in the panties and longjohns cause the intruder would have touch these two items ok why not the shirt remember the R's will have us to believe the intruder dreesed her..And like you,Jane why no more evidence than these two pieces of clothing....