They may have been brand new and unlaundered.

I don't know.

Not everyone washes new undies before wearing them, or putting them in their children's drawer to wear.

Is this a major issue?

There is no reason at all to think they were not the same panties she wore to the Whites' and then to bed.

The intruder did not change her clothes so no one needs to worry about tracking the panties back to the killer.

The DNA that was in the panties - - it was co-mingled with her blood and probably related to the murder.

I believe JonBenét scratched her killer - - there was foreign DNA under her nails consistant with that in her panties.

If you are scratched hard enough, you will instinctively touch the wound, picking up your own DNA.

I think the killer touched the wound then assaulted JBR and carried his own DNA to her panties.

The BORG has this theory that the DNA came from the person who sewed the panties. Well, if that's true, the DNA would have matched DNA found in the other panties from the set - - right? As far as I know, that didn't happen.

The panties, for sure, belonged to JonBenét.

Christmas did fall on a Wednesday.

Beckner and the cops did take DNA from numerous people in this case - - they did not do it for no reason. The DNA evidence is important here.

Fact - - Ollie Gray has a CBI document that eliminates the parents from being possible donors of that DNA.

I want the truth out - -the whole truth. If the DNA is not important, then we should know that. I have no problem identifying a bit of evidence as a red herring.

The Santa Bear was a red herring. I said that long ago.

The DNA - - that is good evidence and it makes me angry to see the BORG try to dismiss it because it couldn't be from the parents.

You can safely bet the farm that if it WAS John or Patsy's, they would have been arrested! That DNA was mixed with her blood and that is very important to this case.

The person who gave the bear to JonBenét stepped forward and told the cops. The bear was given to JonBenét during a pageant event, is not related to the crime and is really a red herring at this point.

I think it is important to eliminate red herrings like the bear so people can focus on the real evidence - - like the use of a stun gun, the black duct tape, the white cord, the clues in the note. THOSE things need our attention.

The pineapple and Santa Bear can't be linked to the murder so should be left out of the discussion.

I thought the Santa Bear was proved to be a red herring a real long time ago.

The pineapple is just impossible. Too many different experts have too many different time windows. I think the answer has always been to find the killer. Maybe that will solve the pineapple mystery, and maybe it won't. It has never been clear to me that the pinapple had anything to do with the crime anyway.

There are just some things that can't be explained without more information, and we just have to learn to accept it.

Saliva, skin, etc?

Or is that confidential/unknown?

We haven't been told it was NOT blood.

When the large paint brush was broken to make a handle for the garrotte, the killer may have received a small injury to his hand that bled slightly, but just enough to deposit a very small amount of his blood onto the panties. If breaking the brush handle caused any bleeding at all, that may have been reason for the killer to take the missing handle piece away with him.