Members' Theories

It doesn't say John's shirt. It says shirts provided by the Ramseys.

 

John Ramsey provided two shirts. Fibers from one of these shirts (the black wool shirt made in Israel) matched those black fibers found on JonBenet's external labia and in her underpants. The inference drawn is that the victim's body came in contact with those fibers on that fatal night.

 

The inference drawn is the victim's body came in contact with someone wearing the shirt and direct transference occured or with someone who came in contact with someone wearing the shirt and secondary transference occured. The comment was made that fibers were on the body.

 

But Paradox, JonBenet's body had been wiped down that night, so how did fibers get from John's made in Israel shirt onto her external labia AFTER she was wiped down? Transference? How could that have happened, with clothing in between? John didn't wear that same shirt the next day, unlike Patsy.

 

It was a long-sleeved shirt. If JR participated in the redressing, (I believe both parents were involved there) fibers could have transferred when he was pulling on her panties, either by handling the panties themselves or touching the body or both.
It'd be interesting if LE could have found that package of size 12s that night. If BOTH parents' prints were on it, that'd be suspicious. Just PR's prints can be explained by the fact that she wrapped them. But if JR's prints were there, that raises a red flag. Of course, when the Rs finally "found" the package and sent it to LE, there was no way to prove that it was the same package. Bloomingdale's still sells them.

 

Paradox says that John wasn't involved in either the murder or the staging. I wanted to know how he would explain the fibers found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear and on her body.

 

[Note to readers/posters: I don't expect y'all to read my long posts. I just recap what we've learned through the years sometimes for anyone new who might have missed some stuff, if they are interested. It also helps me think through and sort the long years of info, bringing me to new understanding sometimes, too. So take it or leave it, no expectations.]

I believe that package of 12-14 Bloomies is key. Where was it? How did the Ramseys end up with it after LE spent 10 days processing the home? Why did the Ramseys wait five years to turn over critical evidence in their child's murder, which they admitted 2 years earlier they KNEW, long before they turned it over? And why weren't they then charged with OBSTRUCTION, or TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, at least?

The large Bloomies package could have been in the basement. The Ramseys said there were "opened" presents that were in the basement, presents to others, not the 4 Ramseys in the home. Jams says they were trying to "peek" and see what was in them to remind themselves, as if she was there and knows all so she can explain it. But she is admitting that the already wrapped presents were opened in the basement. She does have uncropped pictures we haven't seen from the PowerPoint Smit stole, so she should know.

We can see the edge of that wrapping paper in a cellar room crime scene picture we have access to from the RST PR campaign, as well. It's from New York, from that children's toy store that's famous. We can see the same wrapping paper with rocking horses on it in the picture of JonBenet Christmas morning opening her presents, smiling at the camera. It's the same paper as was in the basement.

So that paper came from New York, and the large Bloomies came from New York. Those large Bloomies are the ones Patsy said she just didn't get together to mail to her niece in time for Christmas. The paper was photographed by LE in the cellar room after JonBenet's body was found. Patsy and John admitted there were presents for others stored in the cellar room.

Maybe that's where the Bloomies were. And maybe that's why they were grabbed without size being considered, because JonBenet was never going to stand up and have a problem with the size, was she? Look at my avatar. It's insanity to believe for one second that JonBenet would have put on and worn those while alive and going to a Christmas party.

And maybe that package was then concealed somewhere to later be packed and taken to Atlanta.

Jams told a couple of stories about that package of large Bloomies over time. She knew about them being found by the Ramseys before we did, and if Wood hadn't finally turned them into Lacy after wresting the case from the BPD in 2002, we'd never have known that at all, possibly.

One story was that the Bloomies large undies package was left in the bathroom and LE just missed it. Then "someone" found the package in Atlanta in the Ramseys packed boxes from Boulder, having never gone through them before that time. "That time" coincided with the LE request a year after the murder for the clothing the Ramseys had been wearing the night of the White's party. The story went something like this: while looking for those clothes, "someone" found the package of large Bloomies, still intact with the one pair missing. They kept them all those years because they didn't "trust" LE, of course. (Can you believe that people swallow this crap?)

The other story is that the package of large Bloomies was found INSIDE the Boulder home by Ramsey PIs after the house had been turned back over to the Ramseys by LE. Again, LE just "missed them". In 10 days, after collecting ALL the undies in JonBenet's undies drawer, they simply saw the Bloomies opened package and left it. You see, PATSY'S story, told to LE in 2000 in Atlanta and available to us through those transcripts, is that SHE put them in JB's bathroom and JB opened them herself and decided to wear them. Or else, Patsy says a minute later, she put them in JB's UNDIE DRAWER and JB decided to use them because JB WANTED THEM, and Patsy gave in. One or the other...or another...story.

No, Patsy didn't remember seeing them clinging to the fitted black pants she pulled off of JonBenet when she undressed her asleep in her bed. She didn't notice at all that they were HUGE on JB when she pulled the long john bottoms up on a sleeping JonBenet, either. Well, I'm almost as forgetful as Patsy these days, so you can read Patsy's changing story in detail in that interview at ACR's site, and I'm sure you have. Or you can go to Jayelles' threads at the top of the thread page of this forum, or click on the link on the bottom of my post.

So which is it? Were the Bloomies found in Atlanta, or in Boulder? If they were found in Boulder, mere weeks after the murder, why weren't they turned over to LE THEN, as they obviously were RECOGNIZED AS EVIDENCE? If they were not noticed and packed and found in Atlanta a year later by that busy, busy "someone" in the Ramsey world, whey didn't they turn them over THEN, when they turned over their CLOTHING? Did the Ramseys want to find that killer or not? Why keep something so critical as THAT from LE so early in the case?

Were the large Bloomies really put in JB's room? Were they in the drawer? Why didn't LE take them, along with all the others they took? Why didn't the Ramseys turn them over to LE, KNOWING how important they were, or else they'd have gotten rid of them instead of saving them to offer up 4 OR 5 YEARS LATER?

Or as you said, DeeDee, was that the ORIGINAL PACKAGE, or another Ramsey lie and ploy to mislead LE? Exactly: no way we can ever know, unless the store ID info was still on it and the bar code could still be traced.

But WHETHER THAT PACKAGE OF LARGE BLOOMIES WAS THE ORIGINAL OR A NEWER STAGED SET, look at this total con with such important evidence RUN BY THE RAMSEYS! The Ramseys expect honest people not to notice their sly and obstructive tactics in delaying the investigation, confusing the investigators, and withholding evidence? Sorry, only the swampsters of the world are going to be mental enough to close their eyes to the truth.

 

Indeed, these fibers have to be explained when presenting one's theory.

If I could ask Steve Thomas a question, it would be:

"Would you also have give John Ramsey a pass if you had known about the fiber evidence against him?"

For additonal tests were performed subsequent to June 1998:

Interesting to note that Lin Wood himself says he "anticipated there might be something" (i. e. that the lab might have found something).
So much for the IDIs' clutching at a straws, alleging that the interviewers "lied" about the fiber evidence. Not even Lin Wood believed this. He knew better.
Of course Wood tried to attack the fiber evidence by trying to downplay its significance. Like Vincent Bugliosi pointed out, a defense lawyer's duty is to his client only, and not necessarily to the truth.

Does anyone remember when exactly the big police presentation took place before the case went to a grand jury?

And since when was Steve Thomas no more involved in the case?

 

I think the reason John was so impatient to leave for Atlanta was that he KNEW there was so much evidence in that house that HAD to be removed quickly, before LE found it. I'm sure he wasn't happy about leaving w/o the evidence on 12/26, but fortunately he and Patsy were able to get Pam into the house the next day to carry out the evidence removal for good. The Bloomies were hidden in some item she took out, maybe the golf bag, maybe that was where the original underpants were hidden too. Maybe they flushed those. But there was evidence in that house that Pam took out, that I know for certain.

 

Heymom = rashomon

 

Paradox = :hood:

 

??????????????????????????? You've really lost it now, Paradox.

 

:fingers:

Sorry that came your way.....

 

Wrong inference, Paradox - I'm Miss Jean Brodie of course. You overlooked the clue when I said was a 'teacher'. :jester:

But kidding aside: I can understand that these fibers from John's shirt are bothering you because you believe Patsy did all this alone without John having a clue what was going on.
But a theory has to take into account the forensic evidence found at the crime scene. One can't just pretend these shirt fibers didn't exist. Why don't you try to build them into your theory?

 

You repeated what rashomon said: fibers were found in the crotch area of the panties. No where does it say that.

For one to read material and then transpose the material and state the transpostion as true to the original, I think one must want the transpostion to be true. To do this after admonishing others to stick to the evidence shows not only a lack of objectivity but also a lack of effort to concentrate.

There is no evidence that John Ramsey sexually misused or abused JonBenet pre 12/25/'96.

There is evidence that Patsy sexually misused JonBenet in the pageants.

Ergo, I lean to Patsy as the genital abuser of JonBenet, both chronic and the night of 12/25/'96.

As far as the fibers, the subject was brought up in the interview, I don't know the exact facts. Either John was involved in the treatment of the body or there was secondary transference.

 

You said a mouthful, there, Paradox. People who don't know the facts ought not be trying to argue a point.

Wish I had more time to get involved in this conversation, but it appears the others are doing a splendid job refuting your "I don't know the exact facts" rhetoric.

Carrion...

 

Meanwhile the exact quotes have been posted on this thread, and the correction does not make the fiber evidence against John one iota less damaging - quite the contrary.

If John was involved in the treatment of the body, how did Patsy get him to to help her? What do you think she told him?

 

Obviously.

 

Someone quick!!! I need to buy some time for WY! Who has a spare hour to hand off?!