JBR's underwear sent for DNA analysis

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tez, Dec 27, 2003.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Adrian Monk

    Don't mind me. I happen to think you are intelligent and capable of ferreting out the BS and getting to the nitty gritty of this case, but I think you are basing some of your thoughts on wrong information. Ever since Steve Thomas wrote his book (right or wrong, there are differences of opinion on this forum about that), we have had little information from the BPD and tons of one-sided propaganda from the RST. Unfortunately, some of that propaganda manages to work its way into the calulations of even some of the long-term and most knowledgeable posters. Things like John Ramsey closing that basement window - so HE says. I saw just today how jameson tried to blow away someone's theory about Paty's fibers getting on JB because by then "Patsy had her nightclothes on."

    Hello? How the hell does jameson know that? Was she there? Of course not. Jameson does NOT know that. I don't recall Patsy's ever saying she put her pajamas or nightgown on that night, but by God, the all knowing jameson knows what she had on. Little comments like that get picked up by little heads, though, and touted as truth when it's nothing but garbage.

    I love to discuss things about this case, but I get frustrated when I know what I'm reading is regurgitated Wood or jameson, or Smit fabrications. It's not intentional, I know that, but it happens a lot. If we are going to keep our heads above water here, we have to go back to the best evidence in this case, which was the original observations of the police at the scene, the evidence collected, which has not changed, and the reports made by the detectives who were there and witnessed certain things. There were mistakes made in the beginning of this case, obviously, but I believe those detectives worked really hard to find the truth. The RST likes to make it sound as if the BPD were bent on convicting the parents. Why would they? These detectives were deeply affected by JB's death. Why would they want to falsely accuse the parents and let a monster go free to kill another child? Of course, there's no evidence that's happened, dear me.

    None of the evidence in the case has changed. What has changed is that Wood and the Ramseys and Smit and their other henchmen have been the only ones talking, putting out crockumentaries that are skewed and totally self (Ramsey)-serving, appearing on talk shows, yada yada yada. ThE BPD hasn't talked. Keenan et al sure as heck aren't talking; she's got a Ramsey henchman on her payroll, imagine that. The evidence and the facts have been so twisted by the RST, it's a wonder anyone even knows it's still the JBR case.

    My own thoughts on any conspiracy issue is that someone called in a few favors that night - that someone has powerful connections. They have to keep a lid on their actions to protect themselves. Boulder is an incestuous little town politically speaking. I believe there has been a cover up involving some Boulder officials - either that or they are truly the most inept bunch of clowns in that DA's office I've ever seen. I'd go further and call it corruption. There's something very wrong in that place; I don't know who all the players are though.
  2. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: I mentioned this before

    Was it these guys?

  3. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    I can prove a person is insane by examining just one dab of conditioner.
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    old or new underwear?

    Tricia, the following post went missing, and you were interested in having someone confirm if it was old or new underwear that was on JonBenét when she was found.


    Ms. McKINLEY: They had three things: They had a hair on a blanket, they had some fingernail cuttings with perhaps some DNA under the cuttings from JonBenet and they had a pair of her underwear that might have had bloodstains on it. But the bloodstains, my sources tell me, had been washed over and over again in the laundry and they might not have been able to get any DNA from those stains. So it might have been old.

    RIVERA: The child's underwear had bloodstains.

    Ms. McKINLEY: From what my sources say, yes. I have two very good sources who've told me that. But they might not have gotten anything from the DNA because it might have been an old bloodstain.


    In the NE Police Files, Patsy just talks about putting on Longjohns. Not a mention of any other kind of underwear.

    page 210 "NE Police Files." When asked about a packet of Pullups hanging out the cupboard in JonBenét’s room, Patsy talks about JonBenét not having used them for a while, but said she took some out and put them in the suitcase.

    Patsy covers herself at every turn.

    Excerpt from Dr. Myers' autopsy


    There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. 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 maximum dimension.

    jmo elle
  5. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Adrian Monk

    That is of course the best we can do, for piecing together evidence, but I think many of us can have a good excuse for paying attention to the details of what the Scamseys give as their story, as a search for instances of their lies. Perhaps the way it seeps into what we think of as the paradigm of what happened, is when the bits of Scamsey Spin are temporarily taken as fact "for argument's sake", as in, "well if they did this, then how did THIS get there?" Eventually, that gets overwhelmed by idiot Jameson-clones taking the "they did this" as fact.

    That's just it: the detectives were given contradictory orders by the corrupt City of Boulder: follow the evidence (on the one hand) but don't go after the Ramseys (on the other hand). But the evidence DID lead to the Ramseys, and in spite of that, they were forced to chase down all the frivolous leads collected in John Ramsey's shoe box full of wild hairs. A middle class version of the Ramseys in a non-corrupt town would have simply produced Patsy as another Susan Smith, and perhaps put John behind bars for obstruction, as well.

    I'm not so keen on making 100% of all of the BPD "good guys" in the case. Tom Koby was a shady as hell character, that's for sure. Boulder didn't want its boat rocked, and those who didn't rock it, rose through the ranks of the PD. Those who did, like Steve Thomas, well one way to get rid of 'em was to make their job a living hell so they'd quit. And I guess with Thomas, it worked.

    I also don't think Keenan's anywhere near on the side of justice in this case. Erasing the 911 tape; spouting off in agreement with that farce of a kangaroo trial miscarried against Chris Wolf; tasking only a PART of one investigator's time to the case, almost as just a token effort; I think it's pretty obvious what her agenda is here. And I think both hers and Al Qaeda Hunter's actions in office should (but probably won't) be investigated by the FBI for possible corruption.

    How "powerful" are the Scamseys now, with their war chest depleted? What kind of favors were called in to make Keenan erase the 911 tape? "If you erase that tape I'll take you to Denny's and get you a Grand Slam!" Yeah, that would tempt ME to throw away my career as a DA, in a heartbeat (feel the sarcasm here). What other alternatives are there? Does she perhaps have the hots for Lyin' Wood, and aided and abetted his libel banditry for a few nights at the Boulderado to "play horsey"? That's not exactly Occamite in nature either. Some sort of a puppet string tugged on her wrist in erasing that tape, a string that goes beyond just "calling in a favor".

    Many acts could qualify for that, but erasing the 911 tape makes no sense whatsoever toward that end. It isn't Keenan on the tape. If she simply released it as-is, and let the chips fall where they may if some independant lab heard John screaming at Burke, that still doesn't let the cat out of the bag for any of Keenan's own wrongdoings while working "under" (ahem) Hunter.

    If there are corrupt players, and those players operated on an agreed-to agenda, that is, like it or not, a conspiracy. I'm not talking black helicopters or blather about a "New World Order" or Freemasons or the symbol of the pyramid on U.S. currency; I'm talking about the real deal, the kind law enforcement investigates each and every day, and sometimes charge and get convicted of such. If there's never any such thing as conspiracy, that would require the prison system to release thousands of its inmates, because that's exactly what they're there for.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice