The urine stained panties (and the dry bed)
#1
   

The panties are described in the autopsy:
 " Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waistband. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."


Please note, there is NO evidence she wet the bed.  This is the crime scene photo of her bed.  A urine stain in the hall in the basement indicated she wet herself there, just outside the windowless room where her body was found.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#2
From Newsweek 3/19/2000

DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underpants was male, but did not match John Ramsey's.
Reply
#3
Looking at the formal DNAB records and there is a list of questions the investigators wanted to ask the DNA experts. One of the question gives us a small fact.

"What is the significance that foreign DNA was found on (the panties) and not on the body of the victim?"

My thoughts - the drops of blood went onto the pants which were being held away from her genitals by his hand - and the lack of DNA on her body indicates he was wearing gloves.
Reply
#4
(01-28-2017, 08:35 PM)jameson245 Wrote: The panties are described in the autopsy:
 " Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waistband. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."


Please note, there is NO evidence she wet the bed.  This is the crime scene photo of her bed.  A urine stain in the hall in the basement indicated she wet herself there, just outside the windowless room where her body was found.



I think she wet her underwear because she was scared... or maybe the way her body responding to dying. Very sad Sad

(02-20-2017, 05:58 PM)jameson245 Wrote: From Newsweek 3/19/2000

DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underpants was male, but did not match John Ramsey's.


The DNA under her fingernails 100% came from her killer.. most likely caused because of defensive reasons.

BORG always tries to dismiss the foreign DNA found on JonBenet. never understood that.. science speaks volumes!!! DNA speaks volumes!!
Reply
#5
OK, I am trying to understand some of DA's Chief Investigator Andy Horita's memo.
I get some of it but...

The two DNA experts were Angela Williamson and Amy Jeanguenat. Both said that they were not comfortable reporting an individual was a major or minor contributor to a mixture unless the ratio was 3:1 or greater. In other words, if it appeared to be 50/50 or 60/40, they would really rather not label it major and minor components. I can understand that. It doesn't rule anyone in or out as a suspect but simply deals with the strength in that mixture.

In other words, if the letters found are jnbtmario, it could be JonBenet and Mario left their DNA there, could be JonBenet and Marion. No way it was JonBenet and Christine. The M, A, and R had to come from somewhere.

OK - I think that was interesting but the next statement stood out to me.

"When asked, Jeanguenat stated that she saw no indication that a third party contributed to the mixture and would 'testify in court' to that effect."

Apparently some found an imbalance or irregularity there, but these two experts, the ones working with the evidence in the lab - they didn't have a problem saying there was no reason to think a third party contributed to the DNA mixture found in her panties.
Reply
#6
From a 2006 story by Gaby Wood:

Two weeks after the murder, the results of a DNA test came back to the police. A drop of JonBenet's blood found in her underpants was mixed with the DNA of a Caucasian male, and no member of the Ramsey family was a match. It was six months before that report reached the DA's office. In August 1998, Steve Thomas resigned from the police department over the way the Ramsey case had been handled. In September 1998, Lou Smit resigned from the DA's office on the same grounds.

In 1999, just before the grand jury was about to be sworn in, the internationally recognised forensic expert Henry Lee was brought in. Yes, he suggested, the DNA in the underpants was not the Ramseys', but who was to say it was the murderer's? It could have been left there at any time, from the point of manufacture onwards.

'They were going to test all the Bloomingdales factory workers in Hong Kong, until they realised it wouldn't have made any difference,' says Bob Grant, former District Attorney for Adams County and adviser to the grand jury. 'I can make the whole argument - it came from the factory, it came from the cleaners, it came from the pants being placed in a hamper with other clothes that had other foreign DNA on them - it could have come from any number of places. But as a prosecutor, I've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And foreign male DNA mixed with her blood in her underpants: that's reasonable doubt, by definition.'
Reply
#7
(03-20-2017, 12:53 PM)jameson245 Wrote: From a 2006 story by Gaby Wood:

Two weeks after the murder, the results of a DNA test came back to the police. A drop of JonBenet's blood found in her underpants was mixed with the DNA of a Caucasian male, and no member of the Ramsey family was a match. It was six months before that report reached the DA's office. In August 1998, Steve Thomas resigned from the police department over the way the Ramsey case had been handled. In September 1998, Lou Smit resigned from the DA's office on the same grounds.

In 1999, just before the grand jury was about to be sworn in, the internationally recognised forensic expert Henry Lee was brought in. Yes, he suggested, the DNA in the underpants was not the Ramseys', but who was to say it was the murderer's? It could have been left there at any time, from the point of manufacture onwards.

'They were going to test all the Bloomingdales factory workers in Hong Kong, until they realised it wouldn't have made any difference,' says Bob Grant, former District Attorney for Adams County and adviser to the grand jury. 'I can make the whole argument - it came from the factory, it came from the cleaners, it came from the pants being placed in a hamper with other clothes that had other foreign DNA on them - it could have come from any number of places. But as a prosecutor, I've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And foreign male DNA mixed with her blood in her underpants: that's reasonable doubt, by definition.'


They were going to test all the workers in Hong Kong??? Umm.. wow.

My thoughts are... If you are willing to send people to test every worker in Hong Kong.. how about you test her other underwear from the same package??

There would be NO way her blood would mingle with DNA left from a worker in Hong Kong. They are just scraping for ideas IMO!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)