I feel the subject of JonBenet's panties is much more of a mystery than most people seem to think. I think it's a bit odd that JonBenet was found dead in those oversized panties for a start. I don't think Patsy fully comprehended why that happened. I think Patsy's attitude is that it was nothing to do with her.

Mike Kane made a rather mysterious remark, to my mind, at the Atlanta interview in 2000 when he said something about 15 panties were taken in by the Boulder police as evidence but they were all JonBenet's normal sized panties. I think Patsy tried to explain it by saying she must have put a packet of oversized panties in JonBenet's drawer. Patsy doesn't seem terribly sure about the matter.

I don't know the full facts about all this, and I don't have access to the case files about the matter. There may be a simple explanation which Jameson might be able to provide, like the oversized panties were never included in the evidence collection inventory. Patsy doesn't deny that she purchased those oversized panties. It's just I don't think Patsy is terribly sure what she did with them, or what happened to them.

Lin Wood is supposed to have found some of those oversized panties which Patsy purchased and given them to the DA's office. I would have thought the Boulder police should have held those oversized panties from the start as evidence.

Frankly, I think it's plausible that JonBenet wasn't wearing those oversized floral panties when she went to bed Christmas night 1996, and that those panties were put on her by the murderer after the murder. For some reason those panties may have previously been worn by Daphne White although I don't know if that has ever been proved or not.

I don't think Steve Thomas had much of a grasp of the JonBenet panties subject when he was cross-exmined by Lin Wood in 2001:

9 Q. Was there any decision made or

10 conclusion drawn, perhaps is the better way

11 to say it, that you're aware of, from any

12 source, as to whether the panties that

13 JonBenet Ramsey was found in had been worn

14 and washed in the past or were new, in

15 effect, fresh out of the package?

16 A. I believe that was after my

17 departure that that underwear investigation

18 took place.

19 Q. So, again, the state of the

20 evidence with respect to that issue, you do

21 not know, true?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. Do you know whether there were any

24 autopsy photos that showed JonBenet from the

25 standpoint of being able to look at it to

245

1 see whether or not the panties, not the other

2 articles of clothing, but the panties, fit

3 her or whether they were obviously not a

4 correct fit?

5 A. It's my belief from detective

6 briefings that they were referred to as

7 oversized floral panties.

8 Q. Thank you. Were there any autopsy

9 photos is my question?

10 A. Without the long-john over pants

11 covering the underwear, I don't recall seeing

12 any autopsy photos of just the child in her

13 underpants.

The discussion all seemed to end with a big legal argument between Mike Kane and Lin Wood with regard to a question by Mike Kane about whether JonBenet had taken a bath on Christmas Day 1996 and then changed her panties. I think Lin Wood thought that Patsy had been previously questioned about that matter in her previous police inteviews and that broke the agreement about finding new information, which was the agreement by the Boulder police at Atlanta :

11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --
0093
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to
0094
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. - that was in the house.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
15 you know, that is something that was in this
16 house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- that belonged to your daughter,
19 these panties?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.
0095
1 Q. Did Lou Smit ever show you a
2 photo?
3 A. No.
4 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I want to follow
5 up with something you said earlier. You
6 said she would have just gone in and gotten
7 a pair herself?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. Okay. Was she -- did she usually
10 dress herself?
11 A. She was pretty much able to dress
12 herself.
13 Q. And I can't recall if you've
14 ever, and forgive me if you have answered
15 this before, but did she have a bath that
16 day, Christmas Day?
17 MR. WOOD: You have asked that
18 before, several times.
19 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What was the
20 answer? Can you refresh my memory?
21 MR. WOOD: You know that I'm sure
22 better than I do.
23 MR. KANE: Oh, come on, Lin, I
24 was just asking a question so that I can
25 follow up on the thing. If you are going
0096
1 to start getting into you asked that one
2 time, I just don't have a recollection of
3 it.
4 MR. WOOD: Sure I am. Calm
5 down.
6 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Did she have a
7 bath that day?
8 MR. WOOD: Excuse me one second,
9 Patsy. Calm down, Michael. I am not trying
10 to create a problem for you.
11 MR. KANE: You certainly are.
12 MR. WOOD: No, I am not.
13 MR. KANE: You certainly are.
14 MR. WOOD: Let me finish. I am
15 not going to interrupt you. Please don't
16 interrupt me.
17 The fact that you know it has
18 been asked --
19 MR. KANE: I don't know that it
20 has been asked.
21 MR. WOOD: Are you going to let
22 me finish?
23 MR. KANE: No, because I did not
24 say that --
25 MR. WOOD: Then let's take a
0097
1 break, and when you can let me speak without
2 being interrupted, we'll start again.
3 MR. KANE: You mischaracterized
4 what I said. I said I don't remember if it
5 has been asked. Forgive me if it was.
6 MR. WOOD: Let me go back and
7 let's look at it.
8 It is not clear. Why don't we
9 take a break and look and see if it has
10 been asked.

On a Shopping/IceSkating/Theater trip to New York City, Patsy happened to buy in Bloomingdales panties destined to be a gift for Jenny.

JonBenet being but six years old liked them for some reason. The thought processes of six year old girls are probably as incomprehensible as 16 or 26 year old girls. All we know is that for some reason JonBenet wanted them kept and these panties being in the panty drawer she eventually started wearing them without any fanfare or incidents of any sort.

When an intruder entered her home and killed her she happened to be wearing the panties she had on that day. No big deal.

Would you all have preferred Patsy Ramsey to make a fuss and say no to JonBenet? I understand there are certain rules about child rearing: Never Awaken A Sleeping Baby; Never Fight With A HeadStrong Child Over Small Stuff; etc. What on earth do you all expect? Constant battles, yelling, screaming about trivial issues? One of the prime reasons the Ramseys are NOT suspects is that there was no discord in the home. I could see a battle over this issue in some sort of Trailer Trash Druggie Household wherein the mother is going to make that little brat mind if its the last thing she ever does!

You might just as well be dealing with the issue of why JonBenet's bed faced Mecca when the Ramseys were Christians? 'Jever think it is entirely unrelated to anything sinister at all?

However,,,it seems as though there are some strangee things about the underwear,,,one of which is the size, as is being discussed here, but let's not forget the very miniscule, round spots of blood on her panties,,,yet, no blood anywhere else and no particular trauma.

So, although it may seem as though LE is interested in the size of the panties, it is more likely that they are interested in who had access to those panties in an effort to determine how those tiny little spots of blood got there,,,yet no where else.

What I do find strange is the idea that the killer would carefully wipe her down, but be so stupid as to redress her and risk more fiber or DNA clues clinging to those underpants!

Whoever killed JBR must have liked her because he left her with a semblance of dignity. Poor Samantha Runion was placed nude and provocatively posed out in the open.

There wouldn't be any physical evidence of the killer if he took her clothing off would there? I was pointing out the sloppy move of pulling them back up/or on.

Doc Meyers believed she may have been wiped because the blood on her skin didn't correspond to the drops of blood on her panties. The dark fibers may have been from her black velvet pants or they could have been from something she was wiped with if she was wiped.

THOMAS HANEY: Would she or could

6 she have ever exchanged panties with some other

7 girl that she was playing with?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, yeah, probably.

9 You know, if they went swimming or something and

10 got something wet or, you know, it wasn't

11 unusual to have left clothes at our house or

12 somebody else's clothes at somebody else's

13 house.

14 THOMAS HANEY: So they just kind of

15 go in the laundry, maybe get sorted out?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, then the next

17 thing you see, say oh, here, something of yours,

18 and --

19 THOMAS HANEY: Could anybody else

20 have worn hers, say the ones that she was

21 wearing Christmas night, the next morning?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Um --

23 THOMAS HANEY: The ones that she

24 was wearing, you said when you put her to bed

25 Christmas night. She wasn't swimming or

0238

1 anything Christmas Eve --

2 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

3 THOMAS HANEY: -- at the Whites or

4 there wouldn't have involved -- or did it

5 involve dressing up or trying things on?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

7 (Answering while question being

8 asked).

9 PATSY RAMSEY: You mean would

10 somebody have had her underwear on?

11 THOMAS HANEY: Something along

12 those lines.

13 PATSY RAMSEY: It would have been

14 very unlikely. I can't imagine, no.

15 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you remember the

16 white panties with the printed rosebuds with the

17 words of the day on it, did that sound like

18 JonBenet's panties?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been.

20 She had a lot of 'em, so, I don't know.

21 TRIP DeMUTH: And how --

22 PATSY RAMSEY: If I saw them, I

23 might recall them.

24 TRIP DeMUTH: How often would she

25 change her underwear? Was she good about

0239

1 changing them daily?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, yes, yes.

3 Usually we bathed every day and --

4 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

5 PATSY RAMSEY: -- changed her

6 underwear.

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Let me ask you if you

8 remember the last time you remember her bathing?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: I believe -- I

10 believe the 24th, before we went to church. We

11 went to 4 o'clock service, so we got dressed up.

12 And I don't believe that we did on Christmas

13 Day, because that was too much for (INAUDIBLE).

14 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recall her

15 another time, her washing her hands after that

16 time that you remember her bath on the 24th?

17 And we talked yesterday about a lot of times

18 that she could have. But specifically do you

19 have any remember --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I can't

21 specifically say when she would have washed her

22 hands.

23 TRIP DeMUTH: After she bathed

24 though on the 24th, she would have had clean

25 underwear on after that?

0240

1 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, yeah.

2 I am sure she would have had clean

3 underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not

4 have taken a bath.

5 TRIP DeMUTH: She would have

6 changed them Christmas morning?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Or Christmas

8 afternoon, getting dressed. Christmas morning,

9 you know (indicating a noise).

10 TRIP DeMUTH

A pair of play pants (not underwear) was found in JonBenet's room and there were a pair of panties still in them - - she took them off together, as one unit. I think she did that when she got dressedto go to the Whites'.

But if there was any female dna other than JB's found in the panties,
It might make the theory of a factory worker's dna on them at least
partially believable.
I highly doubt any male would have been working in a panty factory in Asia, sewing. That would be beneath their dignity.

I find the subject of JonBenet's panties extremely confusing. I sometimes wonder if the murderer deliberately made it confusing in order to confuse LE in the same way that the ransom note is confusing, and the pineapple and pineapple bowl is confusing.

I don't have any definite answers or even theories about it. There has been some talk on the internet that the DNA under the fingernails has slight differences to the DNA in JonBenet's panties. Before somebody jumps on me for saying that I don't know if that's true or not. A cunning murderer might even plant somebody else's DNA in a victim's panties by using a stranger's panties. That could confuse LE for years.

I think it was very difficult for Patsy to have to explain at police interviews why JonBenet was wearing those oversized floral panties. In a way Patsy simply didn't know. She could only make suggestions about it. It reminds me very much of the Dr MacDonald case when Dr MacDonald was asked to explain evidence at the MacDonald murders and he honestly didn't know the answers. His answers were then taken out of context by internet posters.

I agree with sissi that it looks as though female DNA is involved in the JonBenet case. Perhaps that's why Dr Henry Lee made the remark a few years ago about an Asian sneeze. I sometimes wonder about the thoroughness with which that female DNA would have been investigated by the Boulder cops. It looks as though they have cleared Patsy Ramsey and the Pugh daughter, but I don't know who else.

This is an example of the thoroughness with which the DNA in some murder cases is investigated. From Camm trial, Staub testimony, February 15 2006:

"Staub said that his company did not match the DNA profiles found on the sweatshirt with Charles Boney or Mala Singh Mattingly.

"You mean, you weren't requested to check this stuff against Mala Singh Mattingly or Charles Boney?" Owen asked.

Owen then questioned whether analysts at Orchid Cellmark bothered to call the Indiana State Police to see if they could match the DNA profiles against any of their reference samples. Staub said that none did so.

"I mean the State Police lab has numerous reference samples that they could afford to you, but you didn't do that," Owen said."

10 September 2005
"Police in Manchester in the UK say that car thieves there have started to dump cigarette butts from bins in stolen cars before they abandon them. "

Consider the following posts over the past 30 months with half of them posted in the past 75 days. I'm quite surprised that so many postings on the subject were missed:

November 1/04 “Fiber Evidence” post #19
Maybe he wiped her with those items.
I sure wish we had some more clues as to the actual lab results regarding the fibers. It would seem to me that it is not outside reason to think the black fibers in her pubic region COULD have been from her black velvet pants (worn to the Whites on Dec 25th).

Jan 19/05 “What do you think?” post #20
I wonder if the cops ever collected JB's black velvet pants that she wore to the Whites on the 25th. The dark fibers in her panties would probably be a match.

Mar 17/05 “Questions for John Ramsey” post #4 and #22
I believe the black fibers in her panties were from the BLACK VELVET PANTS JonBenét wore to the Whites.

... The fact is that I believe that there were indeed black fibers in the panties, but that Levin was lying as to the similarity of those fibers to John's black shirt. There is often an element of truth to most things. I believe there were black fibers in the panties, but they were black fibers from the black velvet pants. Levin took that kernel of truth and tried to blindside and test John by turning it into a lie that formed an accusation. John's response was honest and true: Bullshit!

Mar 13/06 “BlueCrab’s accidental delete” post #22
It wouldn't be necessary to take JonBenét anywhere for her to get velvet fibers on her. She wore a a pair of velvet pants with a velvet vest that day.

Mar 15/06 “Fibers recovered from JonBenet” post #23
Rather than 'betting' on the black fibers being from John's "black wool shirt" it is far, far more likely they are from JonBenét's black velvet pants that she was wearing that evening. Given one that is a supposition and one that is a known fact, I don't understand why anyone would presume the fibers came from her father's shirt as opposed to the VERIFIED pants she wore.

April 18/06 “Tomorrow” post #57
The most obvious source of the dark fibers is the black velvet pants that JonBenét wore to the Whites' that night.

May 26/06 “The Rope” post #50
I would strongly suggest they are from JonBenét's velvet pants. Anyone who has worn velour/velvet knows the fibers get all over your clothes.

The subject doesn't seem so much, "why was she wearing big panties", as "are you certain they were the fresh ones you purchased?" "did you wash them, did she share them, is it possible she shared them in dressups with Daphne". It seems the size is important but the "newness" is as well".

I agree with Margoo that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever said publicly that there is female DNA evidence in the JonBenet case.

I think the only reason sissi suspects this, and I'm inclined to agree with her, is some of the rather strange questioning in Patsy's police interviews. Why would Patsy have been asked by Tom Haney if somebody else could have worn JonBenet's panties? Was she asked that question for fun? There has never been anything made public to suggest that anybody else might have worn those panties besides JonBenet.

I would have thought it unlikely that a male would have worn JonBenet's panties, unless there was some strange childish game going on during the Whites' party on Christmas Day 1996.

Ariana Pugh definitely was DNA tested in early 1999. I suspect that was something to do with what had been discussed at the grand jury and which also has never been made public. I know Jameson in the past has had her suspicions about the Pughs. Jameson's suspicions may have been discussed at the grand jury and that's why Ariana was DNA tested.

I agree that male DNA does seem to be involved in blood spots in the panties, and possibly in hairs at the crime scene and under her fingernails. I'm beginning to wonder if that male DNA is relevant to JonBenet's murder. I just feel that male DNA may never be identified, and that's what the murderer intended and planned. I hope I'm wrong about that.

I feel Dr Henry Lee's statement a few years ago that DNA in JonBenet's panties could have come from an Asian sneeze was a bit odd. I can only think that Lee must know that female DNA is involved somewhere. Any Asian sneeze would most like come from a female factory worker involved in manufacturing female panties.

This following line of questioning from Tom Haney was also quoted by sissi in a posting above. To me I get the feeling Tom Haney knows something about the panties evidence which Patsy obviously didn't know at the time of the 1998 interview, and most internet posters don't know about now:

19 THOMAS HANEY: Could anybody else

20 have worn hers, say the ones that she was

21 wearing Christmas night, the next morning?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Um --

23 THOMAS HANEY: The ones that she

24 was wearing, you said when you put her to bed

25 Christmas night. She wasn't swimming or

0238

1 anything Christmas Eve --

2 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

3 THOMAS HANEY: -- at the Whites or

4 there wouldn't have involved -- or did it

5 involve dressing up or trying things on?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

The only reason, in my belief, they were investigating the idea of one of the child's little friends having worn the panties, or whether they were new, was to discredit the DNA they did find in the panties. Initially, I don't think they knew if the DNA was from a male or female.

>was to discredit the DNA they did find in the panties.
>I don't think they knew if the DNA was from a male or female.
Yes indeed. If the BPD/FBI started out with this "its the parents" then any of this supposedly exculpatory dna would indeed be discredited somehow, no matter to what lengths the BPD had to go to.

I don't think foreign female DNA having been found in JonBenet's underwear is in any way, shape, or form grasping at straws.

What I should have said is that dark fibers were found on the shirt and in the genital area of JonBenét. To my knowledge, reports haven't been publicly released showing what fibers were found on her leggings. The BPD at one point was telling John that the dark fibers from his wool shirt were consistent with the fibers in the genital area. I don't know if the BPD was lying about the fibers being wool or not.

3 Q. That on occasion JonBenet may go

4 over to a friend's house, I think you talked

5 about the White's daughter Daphne, and they

6 could go swimming or do something and she

7 might leave her underwear there, get a clean

8 pair from a friend and then be laundered,

9 returned, you would do the same for her

10 girlfriends who may have been -- got wet

11 from swimming or doing, got dirty playing

12 outside. Do you recall saying that?

13 A. Not specifically.

14 Q. Do you recall that occurring then?

15 A. Probably did. I can't say for

16 sure, but --

17 Q. Okay. What I am interested in is

18 whether or not you have a recollection as to

19 whether or not any of the Bloomi panties,

20 and I certainly wouldn't want to pin you

21 down to the day or the week, all right, but

22 do you ever recall any of the Bloomi panties

23 from November to the time of JonBenet's

24 murder being left at a friend's house and

25 then returned to you

Lin Wood is on record as saying he checked out that Bruce Levin allegation about a black fiber from John's shirt in JonBenet's crotch area. Lin Wood has said he knows for a fact that the Bruce Levin allegation is completely untrue.

I believe Lin Wood about that. I don't think Lin Wood would say that if he didn't believe what he was saying and that his credibility could be questioned in court.

I reckon Lin Wood has seen the forensic report about the black fiber matter and knows Bruce Levin was fabricating that evidence.

I think Don Bradley may be correct when he says that the police theory that DNA in JonBenet's panties could perhaps have come from children dressing up at the Whites' Christms Day party is clutching at straws. It's not my theory.

I think what happened is that the Boulder police were told early on in the investigation that there was some DNA found in JonBenet's panties. To the Boulder police grief that DNA was proved not to be Ramsey DNA. There seem to have been a few more DNA discoveries in the case since then but that DNA information doen't seem to have identified anybody in particular, as far as we know.

I think that because it wasn't Ramsey DNA that the Boulder police then adopted the Dr Henry Lee line that it wasn't a DNA case, or any DNA there was came from an Asian sneeze. I don't regard that as thoroughness myself.

The only reason I think there may be female DNA is I can't quite see why Tom Haney and Mike Kane and Levin and Morrissey kept questioning Patsy about whether somebody else might have worn those JonBenet panties. I honestly don't think any male would ever have worn those panties.

My feeling is that the murderer of JonBenet is good at confusing people. The murderer has confused internet posters with the ransom note, and pineapple, and pineapple bowl and the metal flashlight, the suitcase beneath the basement window, and bible quotations etc. The murderer might have put some oversized, floral panties on to JonBenet which came from somebody living in Alabama for all we know. That would be difficult to detect and identify, and in fact would never be identified..

I don't recall that this statement was attributed to Dr. Henry Lee. The statement was, according to Charlie Brennan (Rocky Mountain News) attributed to an UNNAMED SOURCE. It was another desperate theory put out there to discredit the dna as belonging to someone involved in her murder. Since the "killas" are the Ramseys, having that dangnabbit dna NOT MATCH theirs has been a major stumbling block for BPD to justify continual harrassment of the family and an excuse NOT to pursue other leads. BUT, when the DA's office took over the Ramsey case in 2003, they were putting in "70 to 100 hours per week" with the Ramsey murder. A LOT was done at that time that has changed the attitude of WHO the "killa" is - an UNINVITED, UNWELCOME, MALE!

This is what was said in the Charlie Brennan article, November, 2002:

Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.

The panties weren't hermetically sealed to her skin, for goodness sake. She probably had to use the restroom at least once all those hours. I assume she moved around in various positions. Plenty of ways for fibers to get there. I don't know the fibers were from her outfit, but I can't rule it out, either.

ESPECIALLY if the panties she was wearing were not snug, but I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that the very fine fibers from velvet pants do get on the INSIDE of the panties and adhere to them, particularly in places where there is a bit of moisture (around the elastic at the top of the thigh and in the crotch).

(This is getting to be too much information - sorry to the guys out there)

Also, many velvet or velour slacks are lined, and, depending upon the actual quality of the material (real velvet, for example) there might not be much, if any, shedding.

What do you mean you "can't even rule out that JonBenet's underwear wasn't hermetically sealed to her skin?" Of course you can rule it out.

I'd love to go back and kick out that z in surmise...but can't..and being obsessive..it's today's ouch:)

It's clear that Patsy Ramsey wants it to be believed that JonBenet put on the over-sized 12/14 underwear on her own, and she wasn't redressed by someone after the murder who obviously didn't know what he was doing.

However, from the testimony during the Atlanta interviews it appears Patsy was caught in a lie when she said the size 12/14 underwear were dumped into JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom and were "fair game" after that. But Mike Kane reminded her that there were 15 pairs of underwear taken from JonBenet's panty drawer by the cops and they were ALL size 4 and size 6.

Therefore, unless Kane is lying, the size 12/14's were not kept in JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom. My understanding is that the 12/14's were kept in the bedroom in their original packaging and had not been opened until the night of the murder.

BlueCrab

LE knows they were washed.
What would it mean to them if Patsy remembered this??
LE knows there was a transfer of dna.
What would they accomplish , again, by Patsy remembering this?

If they were washed, and there was no exchange , it would only prove as Patsy said , they were fair game, and she had worn them before. Then there would be NO significance that they were big on the night of her murder.

sissi,

The intent of the questioning was just the opposite of your understanding of it. LE knew the 12/14 panties had never been washed.

The intent of the line of questioning was to try to pin Patsy down into saying she SAW JonBenet wearing the size 12/14's, or she SAW the 12/14's in the laundry. Law enforcement KNEW the 12/14's had never been worn or washed, and if they could catch Patsy in a lie about JonBenet wearing them prior to the murder then that would be incriminating evidence of her being involved in a coverup.

But Patsy, well-coached by the year 2000, avoided saying outright she SAW the 12/14's on JonBenet or in the laundry.

The foreign male DNA, incidentally, was mixed with JonBenet's blood DNA and could have been from one or possibly two male donors. It was in the crotch of the size 12/14 panties and had obviously seeped from the vagina after JonBenet was dead. JonBenet had likely been cleaned up and re-dressed in the oversized panties as the perp was trying to disguise the sexual aspects of his crime.

BlueCrab

She doesn't remember Jonbenet being in "fall down big" panties, and she has suggested that the elastic style probably wouldn't fall down. She clearly is trying in every interview to help solve this, even suggesting that she may know more if they showed her the panties. What LE IS SAYING is ..they were laundered, someone had them on before, and it wasn't Jonbenet. IMO this is an interesting "newly" uncovered (for me) clue.

Why did Beckner and Tom Bennett try to lessen the importance of the DNA found in the panties if they had been worn and laundered before?
Such a small amount of DNA as the panties contained would surely have been washed out by the laundering (washing and drying) process.
Asian cough or sneeze? That would make no sense if they had been
worn and laundered.

JS

Interesting.

"Patsy in Atlanta 4 - the panties"

jameson
Charter Member
13618 posts Nov-07-03, 10:50 PM (EST)

12. "RE: I didn't know,,,,,"
In response to message #11

As for the rest of the panties - they were still inthe package. the police did not take them in as evidence - the Ramsey investigators did, however.

jameson
Charter Member
13618 posts Nov-04-03, 11:32 PM (EST)

"Patsy in Atlanta 4 - the panties"

I started a separate thread for this because it took up a LONG time at the Atlanta meeting. 20 pages!
I have to wonder - - once you figure out that the panties belonged to JonBenét, why does it need to be discussed like this? I don't see this leading to the capture of the killer.

75
8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, we
9 are going to move on to another area. And
10 what I want to discuss with you is the
11 underpants that JonBenet was wearing at the
12 time that she was discovered on the 26th.
13 We are going to try to get some background
14 information on those from you. Hopefully you
15 can help us out a little bit. Okay?
16 I don't, I'll be perfectly honest
17 with you, I don't follow all of the media
18 developments in this case, so I am not quite
19 sure what is out in the public sector. But
20 what I would like to get a feel for is just
21 what your belief is with regard to the
22 significance of the underpants that your
23 daughter was wearing at the time that she
24 was found murdered.
25 MR. WOOD: With all due fairness,

76
1 didn't you cover that in June of 1998?
2 MR. LEVIN: I don't believe so,
3 and I think that will become apparent.
4 MR. WOOD: Okay. Well, maybe if
5 you help me, just so I understand, when you
6 say what is the significance of it, are you
7 really just trying to find out what she
8 might know about why she was wearing them?
9 I am not sure what significance, with regard
10 to significance --
11 MR. LEVIN: What I would like to
12 know is what Mrs. Ramsey's belief, as she
13 sits here, is significant about the
14 underpants. In a normal homicide case, what
15 kind of underpants someone is wearing is
16 typically not national news. Fair enough?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 MR. LEVIN: But apparently it has
19 become national news, and I just want to get
20 a sense, before I start asking some specific
21 questions, which I hope she can help us
22 with, why you think, what is your
23 understanding of what the significance is.
24 MR. WOOD: Bruce, I don't know,
25 just so it is clear, I don't know that her

77
1 underwear has become national news.
2 Now, I don't know, sitting here
3 today, I may want to go back and look at
4 them, but it may be something that the
5 tabloids have written about, but I don't know
6 of any national news from reputable news
7 agencies that have made that a major issue.
8 But I am not arguing with that.
9 I just want to make sure I don't agree with
10 you by acquiescence, but --
11 MR. LEVIN: I understand.
12 MR. WOOD: - the question is, I
13 think he wants to know, and maybe I am still
14 not clear, you assume she attaches some
15 significance to it, but I am not sure. If
16 you asked her a factual question, maybe she
17 will understand.
18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start
19 with what - I will make it very simple for
20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you
21 in possession of or what do you know about
22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing
23 at the time she was found murdered?
24 A. I have heard that she had on a
25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

78
1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
9 them?
10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.
11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many
12 trips did you make to New York?
13 A. Two, I believe.
14 Q. Do you recall, and again, the
15 same, same qualification I gave you when we
16 started, which is, I understand that you are
17 not going to give me exact dates, but the
18 two trips you made, did you make those with
19 different groups of people?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The first trip, who was that trip
22 with?
23 A. The first trip was a
24 mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra
25 Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan

79
1 F**** from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her
2 daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms.
3 K****** I believe was her name, and her
4 daughter, and JonBenet and myself.
5 Q. And the second trip you made was?
6 A. The second trip we made was with
7 Glen and Susan Stein.
8 Q. Is that the trip -- which trip
9 was the November trip?
10 A. With the children.
11 Q. Was that -- that is the first
12 trip?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the second trip that you and
15 your husband and the Steins took, was that
16 also November, but later in the month, or
17 was that a December trip?
18 A. I think it was December.
19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your
20 memory as to time. I believe that was the
21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Were you out of town?

80
1 A. I remember that.
2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
3 purchase the Bloomi's?
4 A. The first trip.
5 Q. Was it something that was selected
6 by JonBenet?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. Was it your intention, when you
9 purchased those, for those to be for her,
10 not for some third party as a gift?
11 A. I bought some things that were
12 gifts and some things for her. So I
13 don't --
14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is
15 your best recollection that the purchase of
16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the
17 week, was something that you bought for her,
18 whether it was just I am buying underwear
19 for my kids or these are special, here's a
20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your
21 intention that she would wear those?
22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
23 package of the -- they came in a package of
24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
25 I think I bought a package to give to my

81
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny D*****.
4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny D*****, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a matter of fact --

82
1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a
2 matter --
3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old
4 child?
5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
6 a matter of fact.
7 MR. WOOD: Don't fit her
8 according to whose standard?
9 MR. LEVIN: By --
10 MR. WOOD: I mean, I have got an
11 11-year-old boy, and he wears underwear that
12 potentially hangs down to his knees, Bruce.
13 I mean, I don't know how you can come up
14 with that as a fact. That sounds to me
15 like more of an opinion. Who states that as
16 fact?
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your
18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;
19 correct?
20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
21 Q. She was six years old?
22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

83
1 Q. Ms. Ramsey, would you say that it
2 would, it is safe to assume that, if she is
3 wearing underpants designed for someone who
4 weighs 85 pounds, who is 10 to 12 years old,
5 that those would not fit her?
6 A. Those -- I mean, I am sure she
7 could wear them, yes, but they wouldn't fit
8 as well as a smaller pair.
9 Q. And as a mother, you would know
10 that someone who is 85 pounds is
11 significantly larger than your little
12 six-year-old?
13 MR. WOOD: Can't we assume that
14 as a matter of 85 is more than 45 without
15 her having to document a mathematical fact,
16 Bruce?
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) 40 pounds is the
18 wrong size pair of underpants, would you
19 agree?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to
22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
23 understand why she is wearing such a large
24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
25 help us if you have a recollection of it.

84
1 A. I am sure that I put the package
2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
3 them and put them on.
4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought
5 these sometime in mid to early December, is
6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,
7 you bought them in November?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing
10 these? And I don't mean this specific day
11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you
12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in
13 this package of underpants and had been
14 wearing them since the trip to New York in
15 November?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the
18 laundry for the family, that is part of her
19 duties; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash
22 clothes on occasion?
23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.
24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

85
1 A. Not specifically.
2 Q. Was it something that, the fact
3 that she is wearing these underpants designed
4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and
5 I will give you a minute to think about it
6 because I know it is tough to try to pin
7 down a couple of months of casual
8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any
9 conversations with her concerning the fact
10 that she is wearing underwear that is just
11 too large for her?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it
14 was, if it had caught your attention or came
15 to your attention, do you think you might
16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't
17 fit, put something on that fits, that is
18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
19 had come to your attention --
20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
21 package had been opened, we made the
22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
25 so.

86
1 I mean, if you have ever seen
2 these little panties, there is not too much
3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm
4 sure even if they were a little bit big,
5 they were special because we got them up
6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they
7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was
8 fine with me.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see
10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?
11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 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?

87
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.
13 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time,
14 how old was Jenny?
15 A. I don't know. Probably -- I
16 don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but
17 I don't know exactly how old she was.
18 Q. Would these panties, size wise, be
19 more appropriate for -- is she an older
20 girl?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I assume a larger girl?
23 A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I
24 mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a
25 young woman, but then she was a little girl.

88
1 Q. How old is she now?
2 A. She is now 15, I believe.
3 Q. So she would have been about 12
4 or somewhere --
5 A. 11.
6 Q. -- 11, 12?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. And based on the, I guess,
9 dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about,
10 these would have been a size appropriate for
11 her?
12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
13 MR. WOOD: Do you know that?
14 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Based on your
15 knowledge of her? I mean, I never have seen
16 this girl, so --
17 MR. WOOD: Guys, I think -- if
18 you all have kids, I mean, I just think you
19 are making assumptions based on poundage,
20 apparently, that isn't necessarily, you know,
21 in touch with the realities with kids and
22 their clothes. But you know, if you know
23 that, Patsy, please tell them.
24 Why don't you go ahead and
25 restate your question.

89
1 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) You purchased
2 these specifically for a person?
3 A. Okay.
4 MR. WOOD: Is that your
5 recollection?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 MR. WOOD: Okay.
8 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And I assume
9 you wanted them to fit her and she be able
10 to wear them or there would be no sense in
11 purchasing them; right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Okay. Would the size that has
14 been described here be appropriate for the
15 size of the girl you purchased them for?
16 A. I was guessing at her size, so I
17 had hoped that they would be.
18 Q. Now, we have talked -- you know,
19 the fact that a boy may wear boxer shorts
20 that go down to his ankles --
21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
22 Q. --has nothing to do with girls,
23 when you purchase girl's panties; right?
24 MR. WOOD: Come on, Mitch.
25 Mitch --

90
1 THE WITNESS: I mean, if --
2 MR. WOOD: Don't answer that.
3 That's not a --
4 MR. MORRISSEY: It is different.
5 MR. WOOD: I made the statement
6 because of my kids, but let me just tell
7 you, my nine-year-old daughter likes to wear
8 my XL T-shirts. I mean, you are asking now
9 about the realm of kids, and I don't think
10 that is a factual question that she is
11 really here to give you information about.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Mrs. Ramsey, I
13 never purchased a pair of girl's panties.
14 Okay.
15 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) What do you
16 do, I mean, when you do that, what do you
17 think about as far as the person you're
18 purchasing them for?
19 A. Well, you just look, small,
20 medium, large, you know, and you pick the
21 one you think would most likely fit.
22 Q. And do they have age groups or
23 are they suggested for like a 10-year-old
24 through a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old
25 through a 15-year-old? Do they do it that

91
1 way too?
2 A. I never paid any attention if
3 they do.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay.
5 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it
6 this way. Did you say you bought more than
7 one set of Bloomi's?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?
10 A. I can't remember.
11 Q. Why is it that you remember
12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of
13 1996?
14 A. Because --
15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers
16 it. I mean --
17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.
18 Would you please let her answer the question?
19 It is a simple question.
20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you
21 remember something?
22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you
23 remember --
24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that

92
1 detail?
2 A. Well, for starters, it has been
3 made such a big detail.
4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.
5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you
6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and
7 it was close to Christmas season, so we
8 might pick up a little souvenir. I
9 bought -- I think I picked up a little
10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.
11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --

93
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to

94
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. - that was in the house.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
15 you know, that is something that was in this
16 house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- that belonged to your daughter,
19 these panties?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.

95
1 Q. Did Lou Schmidt ever show you a
2 photo?
3 A. No.
4 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I want to follow
5 up with something you said earlier. You
6 said she would have just gone in and gotten
7 a pair herself?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. Okay. Was she -- did she usually
10 dress herself?
11 A. She was pretty much able to dress
12 herself.

by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call

BOULDER — With the Ramsey investigation being conducted in near total secrecy, the tabloid media is increasingly filling the information void.

And the finger of the tabloids is increasingly being pointed squarely at Patsy Ramsey .

In recent weeks tabloid publications — after a short period of speculating and then retracting a story that 9-year-old Burke Ramsey played a role in his sister JonBenet's death — are now focusing on Patsy Ramsey

In fact, some of them say Patsy believes her arrest is a near certainty.

This week the National Enquirer reported that John Ramsey , having already sold the family vacation home in Michigan and two boats, has put the family's Atlanta-area home up for sale. He is reportedly looking for a condominium and, according to the Enquirer, "preparing for life without Patsy."

A week earlier the Enquirer said John Ramsey expects Patsy to be charged with the murder and that he expects to be indicted as an accessory. The tabloid said he took Patsy on a Cayman Islands vacation so they could be together as a family "one last time."

This week both the National Enquirer and the Star reported that detectives have recently questioned Ramsey family and friends regarding Patsy's alleged use of an herbal diet supplement containing ephedrine, the active ingredients of amphetamine or speed.

Police are reportedly looking into possible overuse of the speed-like substance, which is believed to cause irrational behavior and violence.

The tabloids also claim to know of evidence that could spell trouble for Patsy Ramsey .

The Star, claiming to have copies of reports by the first police on the scene of the Dec. 26, 1996, slaying, said John Ramsey 's story regarding the night JonBenet died changed in two different interviews with police.

The Star claims John first told police he put a sleeping JonBenet to bed when the family returned from a Christmas party without reading to her. He reportedly later told police he read to the little girl before she went to sleep.

The same tabloid claims JonBenet was wearing size-12 underwear when her body was found, in spite of the fact she normally wore a much-smaller size 6. The report said the little girl was wearing size-6 "day-of-the-week panties" labeled for Wednesday when she was put to bed. The unopened package of size-12 day-of-the-week panties was reportedly in a drawer and had been purchased to give to another child. The Star said police believe the larger panties could have been hastily opened by Patsy in order to make sure the "Wednesday" label was showing.

According to the star, police said, "If a stranger had killed JonBenet, it would have been impossible for him to know where to find the panties." Patsy reportedly changed JonBenet's underwear because she had wet them.

Those reports came on the heels of tabloid stories saying a flashlight believed to have been used to kill JonBenet — as well as its batteries — had been wiped clean of fingerprints.

The so-called tabloid TV shows have also been busy while the grand jury investigating JonBenet's death takes an extended break.

New York lawyer Darnay Hoffman, who in 1997 filed an unsuccessful suit attempting to force District Attorney Alex Hunter to prosecute the Ramseys , re-introduced the "web of influence" theory in a Thursday evening appearance on the Fox News Channel's

"O'Reilly Factor."

Hoffman has long criticized what he calls the cozy relationship between Hunter, the Ramsey defense team and former Gov. Roy Romer — all prominent Democrats. On Thursday he said he has learned that Ramsey attorney Hal Haddon's office prepared President Clinton's tax returns for several years in late 1970s and early '80s.

Hoffman also reiterated his belief that Hunter's office has compromised the case beyond repair, but host Bill O'Reilly was more blunt in his criticism.

"We all know Alex Hunter is an incompetent," O'Reilly said. "He's a boob."

Hunter's office, however, has repeatedly dismissed Hoffman, who once represented New York subway vigilante Bernhard Goetz, as a publicity seeker.

The grand jury, meanwhile, has not met since May 24, and Hunter has refused to comment on its schedule or timetable.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail99.asp?ID=46

With regard to the Atlanta questioning of the panties, I don't see anything strange there at all. It is as simple as the facts stated. I don't believe her panties were changed during the murder or that the larger sized panties mean a darn thing different from the statement of facts provided by Patsy as to how they wound up in JonBenét's drawer and worn by her on Christmas day. Most of us understand exactly what happened and that the size is meaningless. If they had been a lady's size large, maybe we'd have something to discuss, but the children's sizing of underwear is not such that a larger size is significant. As Patsy said, there was not much difference in the size and they didn't fall down around her ankles:

86
1 I mean, if you have ever seen
2 these little panties, there is not too much
3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm
4 sure even if they were a little bit big,
5 they were special because we got them up
6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they
7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was
8 fine with me.

Jayelles has repeated a story several times that she once purchased child’s panties at that New York Bloomi store and she says the ones JonBenet was found in were huge. I realize Jayelles isn’t the world’s leading expert on this matter but I would be interested to see that statement verified.

My feeling is that Patsy was asked to explain the evidence about the JonBenet panties by the police and prosecution lawyers at her police interviews. I believe Patsy was being perfectly frank and candid about the matter in her amateurish way. My feeling is that JonBenet’s panties were no big deal with Patsy before the murder and most of the time Patsy had no idea which panties JonBenet was wearing at any one time.

Patsy said that she had heard, or read in a tabloid, that JonBenet had been found in oversized floral panties which were said to have come from the Bloomi store in New York. Patsy said that all she could think of about that is that she did purchase some oversized panties in New York which she intended as a Christmas gift, but that she thinks she stuffed those panties in a drawer, which was either in JonBenet’s bedroom, or bathroom. I’m not quite clear about that.

Prosecution lawyer Mike Kane distinctly said at the Atlanta interview with Patsy that the only panties recovered, and taken into evidence by the police, were JonBenet’s normal sized panties. I don’t know if that was some kind of legal trickery by Mike Kane. I have no real reason to doubt what Mike Kane said about that and Lin Wood never questioned that assertion at the time.

The trouble is from an internet poster’s point of view is that all this panties business has been investigated in total secrecy as a newspaper report quoted previously on this thread reported. Whatever Margoo says about it, all the police and prosecution lawyers kept asking Patsy if somebody else had worn those oversized panties. They must, to my mind, have scientific evidence that those panties had been worn by somebody else and that scientific evidence has never been made public, or Patsy Ramsey informed about it either.

I don’t honestly see eye to eye with BlueCrab with his theory that the police and lawyers were trying to catch Patsy in a lie, or that the police necessarily think that‘s where the foreign DNA came from. I just think the police believe those oversized panties were worn by somebody else and they wanted to know if Patsy knew anything about it.

I’m inclined to agree with BlueCrab, for once in a blue moon, that those oversized panties were substituted on JonBenet after the murder. I’m beginning to wonder if the murderer had planned that in advance, like the ransom note, and that part of his plan was to confuse the police with foreign DNA which wasn’t relevant to the murder. I’m not saying this is what happened, but it isn’t too difficult to spread a discarded cigarette butt from a trash can somewhere, over the crotch area of panties before a murder. That could easily get mixed up with blood spots, and it would never be detected.

I believe there is foreign DNA which was found under JonBenet’s fingernails. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to have been a perfect sample and it may have been contaminated with dirt and mold, and it has been suggested before even by the fingernail clippers at the autopsy. I would be interested to know more about the DNAX discussed by Mark Beckner during his deposition a few years ago. It sounds as though that DNA didn’t come from the body or clothes of JonBenet, and it seems to be hard and firm evidence.

I don't have any real proof that this is what happened. I know Jameson entirely disagrees that this is what happened. Rather surprisingly for me BlueCrab seems to to think along similar lines to me with regard to this panties matter, although he draws different conclusions about it. It's really just my 'hypothetical scenario' as Steve Thomas would phrase it.

It comes as rather a surprise to me that none of those oversized panties which Patsy purchased in New York were ever taken in by the Boulder police as evidence, that is according to the grand jury specialist lawyer Mike Kane. Surely if those oversized panties had been at the crime scene they would have been collected, and included in an inventory of the evidence? I don't believe Patsy was lying in her police interview testimony. Patsy honestly thought she had put a packet of those oversized panties in a drawer. Those oversized panties seemed to have vanished into thin air, or been stolen, rather like the notepad.

It seems to me, and I think sissi suspects this as well, that the police and the prosecution lawyers believed the panties JonBenet was found in had been worn by somebody else, or even by other people.

However incompetent, or lacking in thoroughness, you may think the Boulder police are, I believe the police must have some firm evidence that those oversized panties found on JonBenet's body had been worn by somebody else, or by other people. Otherwise all those police and lawyers must be off their rockers to ask such silly questions at the police interviews about whether she had left panties anywhere, or played dressing up games.

Personally, I think the panties JonBenet went to bed in on Christmas night were her normal sized panties. Patsy never really made a mental note about JonBenet's panties at the time she put JonBenet to bed. Patsy was obviously tired after a busy day and she knew the next day was going to be busy as well, with a long journey involved.

I think JonBenet was abducted and murdered in her normal sized panties. Those normal sized panties were probably covered in incriminating, to the murderer, DNA and he left with JonBenet's panties and substituted some different oversized panties, which he may have stolen from the Ramseys at a previous time. This has caused confusion and bewilderment ever since.

I'm hoping those blood spots found in the oversized panties were there because the murderer did get careless. What I half suspect might have happened is that the murderer might have taken precautions against DNA detection by contaminating the oversized panties with any old DNA, which would not be not relevant to the JonBenet murder. This is rather a repulsive subject, but perhaps getting an unknown and innocent person, say from California, to lick the oversized panties for fun might do the trick for him.

This is the only explanation I can think of at the moment why it has been so difficult to identify any DNA found at the crime scene, and why that DNA may never be identified. As I've said before I hope I'm wrong about this and that the murderer did get careless.

It sounds to me like when the long underwear was removed, the white panties were still on the body. They didn't come off with the removal of the long underwear. If they were "huge" (and I don't believe they were as NO child-sized underwear is "huge"), they'd have come off WITH the long underwear.

Huh? I thought the BPD overlooked collecting them (probably because they were still in the package), but that the Ramsey investigators went and got them and then turned them over to BPD.

The source of the two blood spots in the crotch of the panties was postmortem seepage from the vagina. The seepage contained JonBenet's blood from her internal injuries to the vagina caused by the sexual assault mixed with unsourced foreign male DNA, but which is believed to be from saliva.

The size 12/14 panties had never been washed and had been removed from their original package on the night of the murder. Patsy lied when she said the 12/14's were dumped into JonBenet's panty drawer in the bathroom. When the cops searched they found only size 4 and size 6 panties in the panty drawer, proving Patsy had lied. The 12/14's were reportedly in a drawer in JonBenet's bedroom.

JonBenet's killer was trying to clean up and hide the sexual aspects of his crime. When the killer was looking for fresh panties to put on JonBenet after he had killed her, he found only the package of size 12/14's in JonBenet's bedroom, so that's what he used. He didn't know JonBenet's panties were kept in a drawer in the bathroom.

BlueCrab

Patsy said they were in her panty drawer which has been established as having been in the bathroom:

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.

MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.

.... 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.