The grand juror spoke

Posted in the jameson's WebbSleuths 2 Forum

Only registered users can post in this forum thread.

Anonymous

Beckley, WV

#4 Jan 13, 2017
DNA on JB's underwear and longjohns can be explained by a visit to the bathroom at the Whites or the Stines. Patsy and John were so void of memories after finally submitting to an "interview" by the BPD that they couldn't even remember exactly who sat in the car and who went in to deliver the presents that fateful evening. So we know they wouldn't remember if JB had gone to the bathroom there at the Stines'. But, no doubt, she would have gone to the bathroom at some point at the Whites' party since they were there for several hours.

So I can quite understand why the DNA on her clothing was not important in evaluating the evidence and the lack of evidence for an intruder. If, however, the DNA inside the rope is consistent with the DNA on the undies, then we have a different ballgame. And, no doubt, it would be someone who knew them personally and had access to JB and the home on a constant basis and who possessed a key.

If, however, the DNA on the inside of the ropes is only Ramsey DNA, will they then miraculously exclaim "Oh, yes!!! That was our rope! Now I remember. I used it to..." Because they have always denied ownership of that rope. We will see. We will see...
Anonymous

Beckley, WV

#5 Jan 13, 2017
I should have referred to the portion of the rope that was "inside the knots"--not "inside the rope."

Since: Mar 16

Cittą Di Castello, Italy

#7 Jan 17, 2017
I don't believe she was wearing the long johns at the Whites'- Patsy put them on her when she changed her for bed, IIRC. And the oversized panties were not on her when she went to bed. Which begs the question, what happened to the panties she was wearing when she went to bed. Or am I missing something obvious here?

Since: May 14

Saint Louis, MO

#9 Jan 17, 2017
jameson245 wrote:
Like you, I am not as impressed with the evidence on her clothes -- EXCEPT it also seems to be from the person who left his DNA CO_MINGLED with her blood in her panties that was caused by the sexual assault. There is no innocent explanation for that DNA that I can think of. The BORG said it was some factory worked in China or where ever -- but the man who sneezed into the panties wouldn't have left his DNA co-mingled with her blood -- and it was not layered it WAS co-mingled. And if he sneezed in Asia, it sure didn't end up on her Longjohns that appear to be old and possibly hand-me-downs from Burke.

The cord -- I can see Patsy's DNA on the paintbrush so easily transferred to the cord as it was wound around the stick. In fact, I don't see how that would NOT have been transferred. But - I think the killer was not wearing gloves all the time -- especially during the sexual assault. If he was bare-handed when he pulled the cord tight -- making the knots, tightening the garrote -- he would have left his DNA as well. If that matches the DNA in the panties -- that would be rematrkable and completely convincing to me -- that would be the killer's.
I don't see that dna blood samples from Bill Cox and Cliff Gaston (guests at the Ramseys' party on 23 Dec) had ever been collected. One of them could have spit into a napkin/towel. The same towel could have been remoistened with water and mixed the saliva with JonBenet's blood when she was wiped down. As for the t-dna, it wouldn't necessarily have to come from fingertips. It could have also come from the saliva because it also contains skin cells.

Since: Mar 16

Florence, Italy

#11 Jan 24, 2017
jameson245 wrote:
I believe she wore the Wednesday panties to the party. Her play pants were left in the bathroom with older panties still inside. That is info from search warrant returns.
Thanks; I hadn't seen that. Explains why no one has eer asked that question before.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14 Oct 4, 2017
Anonymous wrote:
DNA on JB's underwear and longjohns can be explained by a visit to the bathroom at the Whites or the Stines. Patsy and John were so void of memories after finally submitting to an "interview" by the BPD that they couldn't even remember exactly who sat in the car and who went in to deliver the presents that fateful evening. So we know they wouldn't remember if JB had gone to the bathroom there at the Stines'. But, no doubt, she would have gone to the bathroom at some point at the Whites' party since they were there for several hours.

So I can quite understand why the DNA on her clothing was not important in evaluating the evidence and the lack of evidence for an intruder. If, however, the DNA inside the rope is consistent with the DNA on the undies, then we have a different ballgame. And, no doubt, it would be someone who knew them personally and had access to JB and the home on a constant basis and who possessed a key.

If, however, the DNA on the inside of the ropes is only Ramsey DNA, will they then miraculously exclaim "Oh, yes!!! That was our rope! Now I remember. I used it to..." Because they have always denied ownership of that rope. We will see. We will see...
When you DNA that matches from three different areas of her body and several sources it's a slam dunk. Saliva DNA from her panties matches touch DNA on the thermal pant waistline and matches the partial DNA under her nails which only had her DNA and that of the killer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

jameson's WebbSleuths 2 Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Paula Woodward - (Jan '17) Oct '17 watchingjbrcase 2
Forensic Linguistics - Gerald McMenamin PhD (Jan '17) Oct '17 watchingjbrcase 21
Edward Edwards (Nov '16) Feb '17 mickey chen 8
JMK and Randy Simons (Oct '16) Jan '17 GigiJones81 6
Jameson 245 where are you? (Nov '16) Jan '17 Anonymous 4
JonBenet's Mother: The Tragedy and The Truth! (Jan '17) Jan '17 Anonymous 1
Schiller's show on REELZ 12/17/2016 (Dec '16) Dec '16 Tioga 1

Forum Rules

Be nice.

Respect the true evidence of the case as revealed in case documents.

Discredited 'experts' hold no power here.

Be nice.

And then enjoy case discussion. We all have something to learn.

Other cases can be discussed as well, there are lessons to be learned there too.