Was Burke Involved # 5

[UKGuy]

You and I will have to disagree on this point. tDNA is everywhere. It doesn't all come out in the wash, but gets mixed in with the clothing. It gets washed through the clothing. Some does rinse out, but not all of it. You use the example of JB's genitals, but it can be transferred onto any surface. It doesn't make any distinctions about where it goes. We're talking about something that's basically the size of a few skin cells. It's everywhere. Take an article of clothing, brush it against a surface and you've just transferred particles from the surface to the article of clothing. The reverse also works. It can come from an article of clothing to whatever surface you brush it against.

I agree that we're not being told about any new DNA discoveries. We're all in the dark on that one.

Seriously, we slough off about 30,000 to 40,000 skin cells every minute. You leave your tDNA absolutely everywhere. Your skin cells travel as dust too so they travel through the air. tDNA from the family is expected to be found on everything in the house.

BoldBear,

We're talking about something that's basically the size of a few skin cells. It's everywhere.

Not quite everywhere ...

It should certainly not be hanging about in the wine-cellar waiting to be discovered. Just because it might be indirectly transferred does not mean it was!

Since I do not really disagree with much of what you say, here is an example of an indirect route: When Patsy redresses JonBenet in Burke's long johns she inadvertently transfers some of BR's touch-dna to her hands, from there it is transferred to the barbie nightgown along with her own touch-dna sample thus explaining why the barbie nightgown has an inconclusive sample in which both PR and BR could not be ruled out.

An alternative is Burke Ramsey removing the barbie nightgown from JonBenet's apparently lifeless body before he redresses her in a pair of his own long johns, thereby directly transferring his touch-dna.

Also the PDI people should be very happy since BDI is weakened and PDI strengthened as they can now explain how BR's touch-dna arrived at the crime-scene.

Yet why would Patsy patently inject BR into a homicide case by dressing his sister in a pair of his long johns and her nieces size-12 underwear then forget where she hid the remaining pairs?

A good explantion here would make PDI unassailable.

.

 

[Mosaic]

icedtea4me,
Bear in mind it was Patsy who said she redressed JonBenet in BR's long johns because she could not find the pink bottoms JonBenet wore on Christmas Eve.

So according to Patsy the long johns have nothing to do with the vacation flight the next day.

Because JonBenet had an extensive wardrobe of clothes, including fancy nightgowns, one of which was found in the wine-cellar, e.g. Pink Barbie Nightgown, Patsy had plenty options to select from.

This is why many query Patsy's version of events and think she might be explaining away Burke Ramsey's postmortem behavior, i.e. dressing JonBenet in his long johns.

The assumption that it was normal for JonBenet to be wearing his clothing can work in either direction, here Burke Ramsey is thinking its fine?

So if Patsy is covering for BR via her version of events then if the Pajama Bottoms lying on the bedroom floor, do indeed belong to BR, and are not being used by JonBenet, i.e. see the Pink Bottoms history, then maybe those Pajama Bottoms were worn by Burke Ramsey that night.

The long johns, the Pajama Bottoms, might have been hand downs to JonBenet, that should be the default assumption, but given the context and what we know, its safe to assume the Pajama Bottoms were worn by Burke Ramsey that night?

Nobody is claiming it as fact, except possibly Kolar, but it does fit nicely into a BDI theory, i.e. its not contradicted by anything else.

.

Or the long johns could belong to BR's overnight guest...
same thing with the childish voice at the end of the 911 call..
JMO

 

[BoldBear]

BoldBear,

Not quite everywhere ...

It should certainly not be hanging about in the wine-cellar waiting to be discovered. Just because it might be indirectly transferred does not mean it was!

Burke Ramsey was in the WC. Yes his tDNA was there too. Even if he never entered the WC in his entire life, was he in the basement? Did JB's garments come into contact with anything before she entered the WC? Were any of his belongings in the basement? My experience comes from working in a clean room for several years. You walk through vacuums and across sticky mats. From there you change into your clean-room gear and go through a 2nd set of vacuums and across more sticky mats. Your head is covered. Your face is covered with a beard mask and safety glasses. You're constantly changing gloves if they ever so much as touch a contaminated surface. Contamination is measured with microscopes and in some cases lasers. The particles they are talking about are scraped off with the tip of a razor blade. They can be so small you can't see then with the naked eye.

Since I do not really disagree with much of what you say, here is an example of an indirect route: When Patsy redresses JonBenet in Burke's long johns she inadvertently transfers some of BR's touch-dna to her hands, from there it is transferred to the barbie nightgown along with her own touch-dna sample thus explaining why the barbie nightgown has an inconclusive sample in which both PR and BR could not be ruled out.

An alternative is Burke Ramsey removing the barbie nightgown from JonBenet's apparently lifeless body before he redresses her in a pair of his own long johns, thereby directly transferring his touch-dna.

Also the PDI people should be very happy since BDI is weakened and PDI strengthened as they can now explain how BR's touch-dna arrived at the crime-scene.

Yet why would Patsy patently inject BR into a homicide case by dressing his sister in a pair of his long johns and her nieces size-12 underwear then forget where she hid the remaining pairs?

A good explantion here would make PDI unassailable.

.

You just traded out the tDNA argument with a garment argument. And that's fine. An alternative would that tDNA was already in a laundered garment. It could also be in a laundry basket or on any surface when the clothing is being folded. If the person folding the laundry folds it on their lap, you can get all sorts of contamination. If a new pair of underwear come into contact with a gloved hand that has touched other surfaces, you get an instant transfer. God knows what happens if you set the underwear aside before you put them on the child.

I'm really not arguing BDI or PDI here. I really don't care if you believe one or the other. If tDNA identifies a stranger to the home, you have a tool to help you investigate. It just doesn't have a lot of meaning for people who live in the house. Their tDNA is everywhere.

I've said enough about this. I'll move on.

 

[UKGuy]

i’m not certain which pillow or its location when they were asking patsy about it in her 1998 interview. Here is the only questioning that was the basis for our belief that there was blood on her pillow:

0425
16 tom haney: That is 73, 74, 75, and 76 now.
17 patsy ramsey: (inaudible).
18 tom haney: That i couldn't tell you right at
19 this moment. do you remember any staining on that
20 pillow the night you put her to bed?
21 patsy ramsey: No. It was dark in there, you
22 know.
​

...and later:

0428

15 trip demuth: Did jonbenet ever have nose
16 bleeds at night?
17 patsy ramsey: Not that i remember.
18 sometimes she might pick her nose, maybe cause it to
19 bleed, but she wouldn't have one of those, you know,
20 dry, you know, to hold her head back kind of thing.
​

because of our lack of knowledge about the amount of blood on the pillow, i asked kolar for clarification about it in his ama. Here is the question and his answer (https://www.reddit.com/r/unresolvedmysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/):

q: because of a line of questioning in one of patsy ramsey’s police interviews, there is speculation about blood on jonbenet’s pillow. Is this just a small smear (like from wiping her nose), or is there an actual blood stain as might be expected from some type of injury?

a: my apologies, but in some instances it has been years since i reviewed information about specific topics or evidence and my memory is a little vague in some areas. With that qualifier, it is my recollection that any blood observed on her pillow was minimal and not attributable to an ‘injury.’ for sake of clarification, the only bleeding sustained from an injury was due to the vaginal intrusion. The blow to jbr’s head did not break the scalp and there was no exterior bleeding from that wound. Further, the coroner made no mention of an injury to her nose, or nasal bleeding. Draw your own conclusions.
​

as kolar suggested, “draw your own conclusions.” for myself, i can’t; so i’ll choose not to base any theories on it. I’ll just hold on to it as a possibility.


That’s pretty much my understanding also, but i’m not sure where you got the information that there were two bloodstains on the nightgown. The photo of it shows about a half dozen cutouts that were tested before it was retested by bode for tdna. To me, it looks like it might even have a couple of bloodspots that were not cut out:

but (imo) not knowing when they happened doesn’t make it possible to attribute them to a location.


I do, but i still don’t know where he was located when he deposited it.


For the reasons given above, i can’t include the pillowcase. I also consider that the source of the blood on her legs and panties might be different from that found on her white top. And blanket.


You’re connecting her pillow as being sourced from her bedroom? Ordinarily that would be a good (but not conclusive) assumption. We know there was at least one pillow that seemed to have been moved around on the morning while bpd and half of boulder was in the house before her body was found.


I simply disagree because of too many unknowns.


(here we go again into an area i don’t feel comfortable with because of my lack of knowledge.) if only one cell is needed, why such difficulty in getting complete profiles of individuals?


Actually i think it just links him to the nightgown -- regardless of where it, she, or he were at the time of the transfer.


Like everyone else, i’m looking forward to any information they might release as a result of the additional testing. I just wonder if they will release everything they find.

removed as html formatting does not work

 

[UKGuy]

Burke Ramsey was in the WC. Yes his tDNA was there too. Even if he never entered the WC in his entire life, was he in the basement? Did JB's garments come into contact with anything before she entered the WC? Were any of his belongings in the basement? My experience comes from working in a clean room for several years. You walk through vacuums and across sticky mats. From there you change into your clean-room gear and go through a 2nd set of vacuums and across more sticky mats. Your head is covered. Your face is covered with a beard mask and safety glasses. You're constantly changing gloves if they ever so much as touch a contaminated surface. Contamination is measured with microscopes and in some cases lasers. The particles they are talking about are scraped off with the tip of a razor blade. They can be so small you can't see then with the naked eye.



You just traded out the tDNA argument with a garment argument. And that's fine. An alternative would that tDNA was already in a laundered garment. It could also be in a laundry basket or on any surface when the clothing is being folded. If the person folding the laundry folds it on their lap, you can get all sorts of contamination. If a new pair of underwear come into contact with a gloved hand that has touched other surfaces, you get an instant transfer. God knows what happens if you set the underwear aside before you put them on the child.

I'm really not arguing BDI or PDI here. I really don't care if you believe one or the other. If tDNA identifies a stranger to the home, you have a tool to help you investigate. It just doesn't have a lot of meaning for people who live in the house. Their tDNA is everywhere.

I've said enough about this. I'll move on.

BoldBear,
LOL, sure just you move on. As long as everyone else does not buy your story about clean rooms and touch-dna being everywhere. Which does not rule out direct transfer by BR, its that simple!

.

 

[DeDee]

Burke Ramsey was in the WC. Yes his tDNA was there too. Even if he never entered the WC in his entire life, was he in the basement? Did JB's garments come into contact with anything before she entered the WC? Were any of his belongings in the basement? My experience comes from working in a clean room for several years. You walk through vacuums and across sticky mats. From there you change into your clean-room gear and go through a 2nd set of vacuums and across more sticky mats. Your head is covered. Your face is covered with a beard mask and safety glasses. You're constantly changing gloves if they ever so much as touch a contaminated surface. Contamination is measured with microscopes and in some cases lasers. The particles they are talking about are scraped off with the tip of a razor blade. They can be so small you can't see then with the naked eye.

<RSBM>

Oh, my, yes! Germs jump! Doncha know? I assisted in surgery for total hip replacement operations where the surgical suites were insulated with a double barrier glass partition. Our surgical scrubs consisted of apparatus similar to that of astronauts as air was streamed in thru flexible tubing. Sterile technique is critical throughout the entire procedure. This also pertained to total knee replacements although I understand the tech has advanced since my Operating Room days. Even then, we double gloved and every strict sterility precaution was acknowledged, admired and expected.

I can explain away much of the DNA / tDNA as well as the fiber evidence. A sticking point for me is Patsy's sweater's fiber in the knot of the ligature.

For BDI, a sweater fiber must be on BRs hands that is left behind in forming the knot. Not impossible at all but for him to have so many sweater fibers on his person to leave behind on JB is stretching. That is the only way that sweater fiber fits into that knot in the cord on JBs neck, if BDI. Correct? Then again, there is another sweater fiber in the paint tote. Patsy's pesky sweater fibers were flying through that basement during the death of her daughter.

 

[UKGuy]

I&#8217;m not certain which pillow or its location when they were asking Patsy about it in her 1998 interview. Here is the only questioning that was the basis for our belief that there was blood on her pillow:

0425
16 TOM HANEY: That is 73, 74, 75, and 76 now.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).
18 TOM HANEY: That I couldn't tell you right at
19 this moment. Do you remember any staining on that
20 pillow the night you put her to bed?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: No. It was dark in there, you
22 know.
​

...and later:

0428

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Did JonBenet ever have nose
16 bleeds at night?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I remember.
18 Sometimes she might pick her nose, maybe cause it to
19 bleed, but she wouldn't have one of those, you know,
20 dry, you know, to hold her head back kind of thing.
​

Because of our lack of knowledge about the amount of blood on the pillow, I asked Kolar for clarification about it in his AMA. Here is the question and his answer (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/):

Q: Because of a line of questioning in one of Patsy Ramsey&#8217;s police interviews, there is speculation about blood on JonBenet&#8217;s pillow. Is this just a small smear (like from wiping her nose), or is there an actual blood stain as might be expected from some type of injury?

A: My apologies, but in some instances it has been years since I reviewed information about specific topics or evidence and my memory is a little vague in some areas. With that qualifier, it is my recollection that any blood observed on her pillow was minimal and not attributable to an &#8216;injury.&#8217; For sake of clarification, the only bleeding sustained from an injury was due to the vaginal intrusion. The blow to JBR&#8217;s head did not break the scalp and there was no exterior bleeding from that wound. Further, the coroner made no mention of an injury to her nose, or nasal bleeding. Draw your own conclusions.
​

As Kolar suggested, &#8220;Draw your own conclusions.&#8221; For myself, I can&#8217;t; so I&#8217;ll choose not to base any theories on it. I&#8217;ll just hold on to it as a possibility.


That&#8217;s pretty much my understanding also, but I&#8217;m not sure where you got the information that there were two bloodstains on the nightgown. The photo of it shows about a half dozen cutouts that were tested before it was retested by Bode for tDNA. To me, it looks like it might even have a couple of bloodspots that were not cut out:

But (IMO) not knowing when they happened doesn&#8217;t make it possible to attribute them to a location.


I do, but I still don&#8217;t know where he was located when he deposited it.


For the reasons given above, I can&#8217;t include the pillowcase. I also consider that the source of the blood on her legs and panties might be different from that found on her white top. and blanket.


You&#8217;re connecting her pillow as being sourced from her bedroom? Ordinarily that would be a good (but not conclusive) assumption. We know there was at least one pillow that seemed to have been moved around on the morning while BPD and half of Boulder was in the house before her body was found.


I simply disagree because of too many unknowns.


(Here we go again into an area I don&#8217;t feel comfortable with because of my lack of knowledge.) If only one cell is needed, why such difficulty in getting complete profiles of individuals?


Actually I think it just links him to the nightgown -- regardless of where it, she, or he were at the time of the transfer.


Like everyone else, I&#8217;m looking forward to any information they might release as a result of the additional testing. I just wonder if they will release everything they find.

otg,

I&#8217;m not certain which pillow or its location when they were asking Patsy about it in her 1998 interview. Here is the only questioning that was the basis for our belief that there was blood on her pillow:

It was the pillow at the bottom of JonBenet's bed.

BPD 1998 Patsy Interview, excerpt

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, this is

23 JonBenet's bedroom and this is the door outside

24 to outside little den. Her bathroom would have

25 been back behind the door. This is the bed she

0242

1 was sleeping in. This is the second twin bed.

2 THOMAS HANEY: Are there any other

3 things in photo number 1 that you can identify,

4 say on top of this trunk there is some blue

5 clothing item. Light blue.

6 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE

7 RESPONSE.)

8 THOMAS HANEY: Also at the foot of

9 the bed, it's kind of hard to tell, it looks

10 like --

11 PATSY RAMSEY: I need my glasses.

12 TRIP DeMUTH: You can also take

13 that picture out of there. There is some glare

14 from the plastic.?

15 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks like --

16 this is like a pillow case or sheets or

17 something. (INAUDIBLE.) It was kind of an

18 (INAUDIBLE).

19 THOMAS HANEY: Anything else that

20 shows in that?

21 Okay. How about number 2?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, see, that's the

23 pillow there.

24 THOMAS HANEY: Okay.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Her Christmas

0243

1 sweater.

The blood on the pillow was quite recent as the bedding had been changed by LHP I think?

BPD will have had it tested and known it belonged to JonBenet, otherwise why bother with that line of questioning?

JonBenet Autopsy Report, excerpt

Nose. "The nostrils are both patent and contain a small amount of tan mucous material."

Note: No mention of bleeding!


Kolar sidestepped you on the bloodstained pillow, offering no rationale why the bloodstain did not originate from JonBenet's vaginal intrusion, he is likely bound by his employment terms not to reveal particular forensic details?

As Kolar suggested, &#8220;Draw your own conclusions.&#8221; For myself, I can&#8217;t; so I&#8217;ll choose not to base any theories on it. I&#8217;ll just hold on to it as a possibility.

You have a homicide crime-scene, i.e. JonBenet's bedroom which has a bloodstain on her pillow, and we know JonBenet was bleeding internally. I conclude the blood on the pillow originated from JonBenet's vaginal injury.

That&#8217;s pretty much my understanding also, but I&#8217;m not sure where you got the information that there were two bloodstains on the nightgown. The photo of it shows about a half dozen cutouts that were tested before it was retested by Bode for tDNA. To me, it looks like it might even have a couple of bloodspots that were not cut out:

From a screen capture by Why_Nut, bold emphasis by me.

LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
AGENCY(?) NAME &#8211; CD0878136 &#8211; F2 ACBLDER(?)
EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)
RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
RAMSEY, JOHN W/M
RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

Two lines BLACKED OUT
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??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

I do, but I still don&#8217;t know where he was located when he deposited it.

Neither do I. Not knowing where it was deposited does not rule BR out as a direct source!

For the reasons given above, I can&#8217;t include the pillowcase. I also consider that the source of the blood on her legs and panties might be different from that found on her white top. and blanket.

You never offered any reasons, you just accepted Kolar's rhetoric and drew no conclusions.

You&#8217;re connecting her pillow as being sourced from her bedroom? Ordinarily that would be a good (but not conclusive) assumption. We know there was at least one pillow that seemed to have been moved around on the morning while BPD and half of Boulder was in the house before her body was found.

See Patsy's confirmation regarding the pillow's location above.

I simply disagree because of too many unknowns.

99% of the knowns relate to bloodstains from JonBenet's vaginal assault, so patently they arrived on her clothing and person either directly or indirectly during the primary assault phase or later during the staging phase. If one of those bloodstains is in her bedroom and the parents say thats where they put her, then presumably that's where she was assaulted?

(Here we go again into an area I don&#8217;t feel comfortable with because of my lack of knowledge.) If only one cell is needed, why such difficulty in getting complete profiles of individuals?

Because different techniques are used. Here is a hopefully a lucid explanation:http://grow.cals.wisc.edu/health/how-dna-profiling-works

Actually I think it just links him to the nightgown -- regardless of where it, she, or he were at the time of the transfer.

Sure but the nightgown was discovered in the wine-cellar, so BR is linked to its location, despite the possibility it arrived on the gown, say in her bedroom, we cannot extrapolate from the wine-cellar to her bedroom.

Like everyone else, I&#8217;m looking forward to any information they might release as a result of the additional testing. I just wonder if they will release everything they find.

Especially on the ligature knotting, Patsy anyone?

 

[DeDee]

Read just about everything and I am still PDI.

Are you willing to share? What happened that night to make it PDI from your point of view?

Those nasty yellowed stains on the long johns are obscene. Why does PR allow her daughter to be found in such embarrassing condition? That part really blows me away. And the size 12s make no sense. The overkill in contrast to being A Cowboy Sweetheart is staggering. I just wonder if JB knew she was being fatally betrayed by family and exactly when she realized it.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*And to me, that remark was not only disgusting, but sexist - "she'd like flaunt...her whatever...on stage." Gah!

Dr Phil: "Did you go to the pageants very much?"

Burke: "Yeah, I remember being at one of the pageant things and she'd go out and she'd flaunt or whatever on stage. She wasn't shy, I guess."

 

[k-mac]

Dr Phil: "Did you go to the pageants very much?"

Burke: "Yeah, I remember being at one of the pageant things and she'd go out and she'd flaunt or whatever on stage. She wasn't shy, I guess."

i wasn't affended by his comment here when you hear it in context.
I'm sure BR was very familiar with the showgirl grooming terms and sayings.
can just see PR using these terms to JBR practising,work it baby work it!!! flaunt it,show it ,use it.....fake it till you make it etc.etc.
all part of the pagent lifestyle.

 

[Jennifer17]

Are you willing to share? What happened that night to make it PDI from your point of view?

Those nasty yellowed stains on the long johns are obscene. Why does PR allow her daughter to be found in such embarrassing condition? That part really blows me away. And the size 12s make no sense. The overkill in contrast to being A Cowboy Sweetheart is staggering. I just wonder if JB knew she was being fatally betrayed by family and exactly when she realized it.

a
I don't think that there is any other explanation. The fact that PR would use a vaginal douche on a small child because she had wet the bed is just out of my comprehension. I am pretty sure that PR knew very well that the urethra has nothing to do with the vagina, so to me, it seems that PR is a bit twisted about what goes on in female genitalia. Or that females are intrinsically dirty and have to be cleaned. The douching of a little girl, really disturbs me, as it should everyone.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Are you willing to share? What happened that night to make it PDI from your point of view?

Those nasty yellowed stains on the long johns are obscene. Why does PR allow her daughter to be found in such embarrassing condition? That part really blows me away. And the size 12s make no sense. The overkill in contrast to being A Cowboy Sweetheart is staggering. I just wonder if JB knew she was being fatally betrayed by family and exactly when she realized it.

Had Patsy re-dressed JonBenet in perfectly fitting, clean clothes, it would have been obvious who did it. JonBenet in clothes that didn't belong to her and were too big makes it look like an intruder hastily used anything they could to dress her. It was all part of the staging.

Everything about this crime says "staged like a TV show/movie" to me, especially looking back on it after all these years.

 

[UKGuy]

Had Patsy re-dressed JonBenet in perfectly fitting, clean clothes, it would have been obvious who did it. JonBenet in clothes that didn't belong to her and were too big makes it look like an intruder hastily used anything they could to dress her. It was all part of the staging.

Everything about this crime says "staged like a TV show/movie" to me, especially looking back on it after all these years.

MzOpinion8d,

How does an intruder know where to find the size-12's or Burke Ramsey's long johns?

Columbo: Excuse me Ma'am, could I ask one last question?

Patsy: Sure, fire away.

Columbo: Why did you redress JonBenet in her brothers long johns, you must have known minimally that doing that would make Burke a prime suspect?

.

 

[SandyQLS]

LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
AGENCY(?) NAME &#8211; CD0878136 &#8211; F2 ACBLDER(?)
EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)
RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
RAMSEY, JOHN W/M
RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

Two lines BLACKED OUT
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??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

LAB CASE &#8211; XXXXXX 256-4153 SECTION: DNA TESTING
AGENCY NAME &#8211; CD0871256 &#8211; PD BOULDER
OFFENSE 0902 &#8211; HOMICIDE &#8211; WILLFUL KILL-FAMILY
INVESTIGATED BY: blacked out SUBMISSION DATE: 123196
SUSPECT(S): AKA: 2/2
RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
RAMSEY, JOHN W/M
VICTIM(S):
RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F
two lines blacked out
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 15, 1997
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
#1A, 1B BLOODSTAINS FROM SHIRT.
#7 BLOODSTAINS FROM PANTIES.
#14B BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.
#14I SWAB WITH SALIVA.
#141, 1CM RIGHT AND LEFT HAND FINGERNAILS FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.
#15A, #15B SAMPLES FROM TAPE
#16A BLOODSTAIN FROM WHITE BLANKET.
#17A, #17C BLOODSTAINS FROM NIGHTGOWN.
#11A, #11B SEMEN STAIN FROM BLACK BLANKET.
#12B-2 BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY.

The words "abstract" and "extract" do not appear. I agree that the document uses the plural "bloodstains" for the nightgown. The exhibit numbers are blinding to decipher. I bolded the items I changed above. How convenient to assist the continuing 20 year coverup by simply omitting words like "WILLFUL KILL-FAMILY" and "SUSPECTS" as they are presented.

 

[singularity]

You left off Patsy's answer, UK.


Columbo: Excuse me Ma'am, could I ask one last question?

Patsy: Sure, fire away.

Columbo: Why did you redress JonBenet in her brothers long johns, you must have known minimally that doing that would make Burke a prime suspect?

Patsy: Are you blind? Did you actually look at the long johns? Those would barely fit him when he was six. Make him a prime suspect? If you were a competent detective, you wouldn't even be asking this question. You're going down the wrong path buddy.

 

[k-mac]

a
I don't think that there is any other explanation. The fact that PR would use a vaginal douche on a small child because she had wet the bed is just out of my comprehension. I am pretty sure that PR knew very well that the urethra has nothing to do with the vagina, so to me, it seems that PR is a bit twisted about what goes on in female genitalia. Or that females are intrinsically dirty and have to be cleaned. The douching of a little girl, really disturbs me, as it should everyone.

yep we all agree its totally inappropriate.
think it was for the pooping dramas rather than wee though.
all her underwear had stains.

 

[UKGuy]

You left off Patsy's answer, UK.


Columbo: Excuse me Ma'am, could I ask one last question?

Patsy: Sure, fire away.

Columbo: Why did you redress JonBenet in her brothers long johns, you must have known minimally that doing that would make Burke a prime suspect?

Patsy: Are you blind? Did you actually look at the long johns? Those would barely fit him when he was six. Make him a prime suspect? If you were a competent detective, you wouldn't even be asking this question. You're going down the wrong path buddy.

singularity,
Her answer was left blank so members could inject their particular bias. Yours is the long johns are not his then age appropriate size. That still does not prevent BR from selecting an old unused pair of long johns, just as you suggest PR has?

We need the actual size of those long johns otherwise its all speculation.

Remember we think JonBenet was likely wearing the pink barbie nightgown to bed and was then redressed in the long johns as part of the staging.

Patsy herself says she went to JonBenet's pajama drawer to fetch pajama bottoms and picked the long johns, despite a host of alternatives, thus injecting BR into the homicide and become a prime suspect in the death of JonBenet. This was a decision that Patsy made!

Then there are the size-12's. Any PDI must explain why Patsy forgot where she placed the remaining pairs of size-12's, otherwise PDI is seriously inconsistent.

There is no doubt that Patsy helped construct the wine-cellar crime-scene, her forensics are all over it. Yet, cui bono, who benefits? Looks like it's BR to me. Certainly not Patsy, i.e. she is not writing herself out of killing JonBenet is she? Most of the steps she takes entangles her further and deeper than before, assuming a Thomas style PDI,

Also given BR's then age, the manner in which JonBenet was redressed would perfectly suit the mindset of a panicked 9-year old. Whereas I might expect a higher degree of finesse from Patsy given her age when redressing JonBenet.

Also vigorously defended PDI theories are what one would expect assuming the staging was partially successful, Members should check out out the Sam Sheppard case where similar elements play out. The TV series and Movie The Fugitive were loosely based on this case.

.

 

[Ambitioned]

yep we all agree its totally inappropriate.
think it was for the pooping dramas rather than wee though.
all her underwear had stains.

It could also be because she wanted to flush the vag out. She said "....well at least JB won't have cancer." (Paraphrasing) And yes, it was sickening.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

MzOpinion8d,

How does an intruder know where to find the size-12's or Burke Ramsey's long johns?

Columbo: Excuse me Ma'am, could I ask one last question?

Patsy: Sure, fire away.

Columbo: Why did you redress JonBenet in her brothers long johns, you must have known minimally that doing that would make Burke a prime suspect?

.

This is only a guess, but my assumption is that those items were in the basement already. If the underwear were a gift, keeping them down there makes sense, and Burke's old long johns may have been put down there in a giveaway box, or set aside for Patsy to use as a cleanup rag when she painted.

Having kids in my house, I can attest that things end up nowhere near where they logically belong quite often lol.

 

[UKGuy]

This is only a guess, but my assumption is that those items were in the basement already. If the underwear were a gift, keeping them down there makes sense, and Burke's old long johns may have been put down there in a giveaway box, or set aside for Patsy to use as a cleanup rag when she painted.

Having kids in my house, I can attest that things end up nowhere near where they logically belong quite often lol.

MzOpinion8d,
You could be right, other members have suggested the same explanation.

The way I see it is you have a staged crime-scene in the basement, and the parents had all night to arrange it so it looked plausible.

Yet they ignored the pineapple snack, dressed JonBenet in Patsy's niece's size-12's and Burke's long johns?

Which is strange since it makes BR fall under a cloud of suspicion, even if he is innocent.

I'm thinking the parents were late to the original murder scene, JonBenet was already in rigor mortis, there was not a lot they could do, and time was short, so they relocated JonBenet along with her dressing gown, cleaned her up and wrote the ransom note as a cover, with Patsy adding the ligature and paintbrush?

Could be Burke Ramsey staged JonBenet in her bedroom, where she was found by either Patsy or John?

This scenario allows for BDI All as per James Kolar and PDI via the asphyxiation?

Thats how I see the case: a combination of BDI and the parents adding the staging, but the size-12's and long johns were added by Burke. I could see a panicked Burke doing that but not either parent.

If the case is PDI why bother staging at all then leave the pineapple snack in place which blows you version of events, then lie about the size-12's which you should know all about?

The answer: Patsy took a bullet for Burke, she was willing to to say black was white so to defend Burke.

Assuming BR's bedroom was untouched that night, it looks like Burke and JonBenet were sharing beds and something went seriously wrong. Burke cleaned up, staged JonBenet as best he could and probably retired to his own room?

.