Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[UKGuy]

No, they don't. They place him at "a" pineapple snack, but not necessarily "the" snack. It could easily be the case that PR asked him to put the bowl in the 'fridge before they left for the party at the Whites. I know you want badly to tie the pineapple to Burke because it fits your BDI scenario, but there are multiple scenarios that are possible. We don't know whether JB ate pineapple alone, with Burke, or with one or both parents.

You are also mistaken about the fiber evidence. The fibers don't necessarily place the parents in the basement. Secondary transfer could easily explain the fibers.

Chrishope,
Sure but you make the mistake of assuming all your multiple scenario's have an equal weighting.

Again you make an elementary mistake, the fibers in the wine-cellar may have arrived there by many different routes. But the most probable is that the parents were in that wine-cellar. I would exclude JR because someone may have used his shirt, but him and Patsy are so patently complicit, that the weight of evidence comes down on them being present in the wine-cellar.

I guess you could argue no R was involved due to the distinct possibility of Secondary transfer, so we can all pack out bags and go home.

My money is on Burke being present when JonBenet snacked pineapple, he was there long enough to make tea.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Sure but you make the mistake of assuming all your multiple scenario's have an equal weighting.

Again you make an elementary mistake, the fibers in the wine-cellar may have arrived there by many different routes. But the most probable is that the parents were in that wine-cellar. I would exclude JR because someone may have used his shirt, but him and Patsy are so patently complicit, that the weight of evidence comes down on them being present in the wine-cellar.

I guess you could argue no R was involved due to the distinct possibility of Secondary transfer, so we can all pack out bags and go home.

My money is on Burke being present when JonBenet snacked pineapple, he was there long enough to make tea.

You'd have a valid point if you could show -with known fiber transfer science- that one method is more probable than the other.

If it were an intruder scenario, where there is no reason for the intruder's fibers to be present, we could discount indirect transfer. But I think we agree that it's not IDI.

So we have a victim who shared a home with all the suspects. Therefore we have two possible explanations for the fibers -Direct, and Indirect (Primary and Secondary)

If you wish to say that one transfer method is more probable than the other, then please share the fiber transfer science that tells us that.

As far as I can see there is no way to distinguish whether the fibers were deposited by direct or indirect transfer, and no way to determine that one is more probable than the other.

You are either going to have to provide some science, or accept that the fiber evidence is inconclusive.

There are ways to make an educated guess, as to probability, but they would require info that we don't have, and methods that, as far as I know, were not employed during evidence gathering. We don't know the overall fiber count, we don't have a baseline established from any other part of the house, we don't have a "shedability" study, and so we have absolutely nothing to help us decide which is more probable.

But perhaps there are gaps in my knowledge of the case. Perhaps we have all the info. If so, you could easily relate it to me and the others who are skeptical of the value of the fiber evidence.

 

[blefuscu]

Chrishope,
There is plenty we dont know, but in terms of probability and circumstance, just like the fibers place the parents in the wine-cellar, those fingerprints place Burke at the pineapple snack.

.

No they don't. The fingerprints merely show that Burke touched the bowl at some point. Could be that Burke just put the pineapple in the fridge, or even just the bowl into the cupboard.

 

[UKGuy]

No they don't. The fingerprints merely show that Burke touched the bowl at some point. Could be that Burke just put the pineapple in the fridge, or even just the bowl into the cupboard.

blefuscu,

All this pedantic talk, assigning similar probabilities to separate events, is well mistaken.

The fingerprint on the teaglass and on the bowl corroborate each other.

Could be that Burke just put the pineapple in the fridge, or even just the bowl into the cupboard.

Sure and that was probably when JonBenet had her pineapple snack.

Those fingerprints as with the fibers are prima facie evidence of the R's complicity in the death of JonBenet. Alternative routes of deposit are just that and have a low probability.

Seems to me some people are very selective when it comes to probability, e.g. John has a high probability as the person who assaulted JonBenet, but Patsy has a low probability as a direct contributer of her fibers to the wine-cellar crime-scene.



.

 

[UKGuy]

You'd have a valid point if you could show -with known fiber transfer science- that one method is more probable than the other.

If it were an intruder scenario, where there is no reason for the intruder's fibers to be present, we could discount indirect transfer. But I think we agree that it's not IDI.

So we have a victim who shared a home with all the suspects. Therefore we have two possible explanations for the fibers -Direct, and Indirect (Primary and Secondary)

If you wish to say that one transfer method is more probable than the other, then please share the fiber transfer science that tells us that.

As far as I can see there is no way to distinguish whether the fibers were deposited by direct or indirect transfer, and no way to determine that one is more probable than the other.

You are either going to have to provide some science, or accept that the fiber evidence is inconclusive.

There are ways to make an educated guess, as to probability, but they would require info that we don't have, and methods that, as far as I know, were not employed during evidence gathering. We don't know the overall fiber count, we don't have a baseline established from any other part of the house, we don't have a "shedability" study, and so we have absolutely nothing to help us decide which is more probable.

But perhaps there are gaps in my knowledge of the case. Perhaps we have all the info. If so, you could easily relate it to me and the others who are skeptical of the value of the fiber evidence.

Chrishope,

that one method is more probable than the other.

I think we will leave it there. Next time you play the lottery, bet on a horse, or play roulette, ask yourself, which one will offer me the highest probability of a win?

.

 

[pistolina]

You'd have a valid point if you could show -with known fiber transfer science- that one method is more probable than the other.

If it were an intruder scenario, where there is no reason for the intruder's fibers to be present, we could discount indirect transfer. But I think we agree that it's not IDI.

So we have a victim who shared a home with all the suspects. Therefore we have two possible explanations for the fibers -Direct, and Indirect (Primary and Secondary)

If you wish to say that one transfer method is more probable than the other, then please share the fiber transfer science that tells us that.

As far as I can see there is no way to distinguish whether the fibers were deposited by direct or indirect transfer, and no way to determine that one is more probable than the other.

You are either going to have to provide some science, or accept that the fiber evidence is inconclusive.

There are ways to make an educated guess, as to probability, but they would require info that we don't have, and methods that, as far as I know, were not employed during evidence gathering. We don't know the overall fiber count, we don't have a baseline established from any other part of the house, we don't have a "shedability" study, and so we have absolutely nothing to help us decide which is more probable.

But perhaps there are gaps in my knowledge of the case. Perhaps we have all the info. If so, you could easily relate it to me and the others who are skeptical of the value of the fiber evidence.

So if I understand what you are suggesting – you think it is more likely that PR fibers were transferred to JR or something/someone, and then from him or that person/thing to JBR. And you find that more likely than a primary transfer from PR to JBR?

Patsy’s fibers were found in four places relating to the crime scene, not just the victim. JR must have been covered in PR fibers in order to get more of PR on the body than himself.
PR fibers were found:
1. in the paint tray
2. tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck
3. found on the blanket she was wrapped in
4. found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm
Fiber Number
The number of fibers on the clothing of a victim identified as matching the clothing of a suspect is important in determining actual contact. The greater the number of fibers, the more likely that contact actually occurred between these individuals.
Fiber Location
Where fibers are found also affects the value placed on a particular fiber association. The location of fibers on different areas of the body or on specific items at the crime scene influences the significance of the fiber association.
snip
A primary transfer occurs when a fiber is transferred from a fabric directly onto a victim's clothing, whereas a secondary transfer occurs when already transferred fibers on the clothing of a suspect transfer to the clothing of a victim.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm
Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

 

[pistolina]

No, the panties were in a drawer. Patsy bought them in a size 12 for her niece.

Well, that is what PR said but they were not found in the drawer by the police. The R's found them and sent the remaining panties to the police much later.

 

[dodie20]

Well, that is what PR said but they were not found in the drawer by the police. The R's found them and sent the remaining panties to the police much later.

and you have to wonder, if these panties were a gift, why they were put away in a drawer? Wouldn't they have been wrapped like the other presents, and stored, like the other presents, in the basement? I'm confused about what gifts were packed for Michigan. Were they still at the house, or were they already aboard the plane?

 

[LinasK]

and you have to wonder, if these panties were a gift, why they were put away in a drawer? Wouldn't they have been wrapped like the other presents, and stored, like the other presents, in the basement? I'm confused about what gifts were packed for Michigan. Were they still at the house, or were they already aboard the plane?

Not to ever defend PR, but it is possible she was going to take them along and wrap them in Michigan. I know I went to a wedding across the country from me in Minnesota, and I took along the gift and wrapped it in Minnesota (because I had a 2-year-old, who still tried to rip it open the minute she saw the present!)

 

[Chrishope]

So if I understand what you are suggesting – you think it is more likely that PR fibers were transferred to JR or something/someone, and then from him or that person/thing to JBR. And you find that more likely than a primary transfer from PR to JBR?

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we know of two methods by which fibers can be transferred, direct (primary) and indirect (secondary). So we have two explanations for the fibers. If we would like to rule one out, then we need to explain why it had to be the one, and not the other. If we can't show that it had to be one and not the other, then we must accept that the fiber evidence is not conclusive.

Patsy’s fibers were found in four places relating to the crime scene, not just the victim. JR must have been covered in PR fibers in order to get more of PR on the body than himself.
PR fibers were found:
1. in the paint tray
2. tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck
3. found on the blanket she was wrapped in
4. found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm
Fiber Number
The number of fibers on the clothing of a victim identified as matching the clothing of a suspect is important in determining actual contact. The greater the number of fibers, the more likely that contact actually occurred between these individuals.
Fiber Location
Where fibers are found also affects the value placed on a particular fiber association. The location of fibers on different areas of the body or on specific items at the crime scene influences the significance of the fiber association.
snip
A primary transfer occurs when a fiber is transferred from a fabric directly onto a victim's clothing, whereas a secondary transfer occurs when already transferred fibers on the clothing of a suspect transfer to the clothing of a victim.

JB may well have had a large number of PR fibers on her She had plenty of opportunity for contact with her parents in the hours prior to the murder. But what is a large number? We'd need a fiber count. We'd have to know something about the propensity of PRs sweater/jacket to give up fibers -"shedability". And we'd have to know something about JB's clothing's propensity to attract fibers. As far as I can see, we don't know these things. We'd also need some sort of baseline in another, non-crime, part of the house to determine what a "lot" is.

The paint tote belonged to PR, and was normally kept upstairs. LHP took it to the basement on the 22nd. Finding PRs fibers in her own tote is about as incriminating as finding her fingerprints on the tote. Also, the tote is a container, so fibers falling into it would not have much of a chance to come in contact with other people/objects. They could however be picked up by the killer's hands as he (or she) rummaged in the tote for a paintbrush.

The garrote is on her neck, so it's not hard to see that fibers could get on it from her body, clothing, or hair. That the fibers are "tied into" the garrote means nothing more than the fibers adhered to the cord as it was being fashioned into a garrotte. Even if one capitalizes INTO, or if one puts in in boldface, it doesn't make primary transfer more likely than secondary.

The blanket was wrapped around the body, so not hard to see how secondary transfer could happen there.

The duct tape touched the body. Dr. Lee said those fibers could be transferred secondarily by PR having kissed JB earlier in the day. Additionally we do not know what the duct tape was stuck to before being placed on the mouth. (no roll of duct tape was found, so the tape must have come off some other object? ) Also JR rips the duct tape off before taking the body upstairs, so we don't know if the tape attracted fibers before, or after it's removal.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm
Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

I'm not arguing that they are from any other source, just that we have two methods of transfer and no way to distinguish between the two. Those of you who have convinced yourself that the fibers MUST be there from primary transfer have only to show the fiber science that tells us that the fibers could not be there from secondary transfer.

We have a victim who shared a house with the suspects. The victim and suspects had many opportunities for close contact during the day. The blanket, tape and garrote all contacted the body. The killer's hands contacted the paint tote. It's difficult to see any problem with indirect transfer as an explanation for the fibers.

I was saving this for my theory of the case, but I'll just go ahead and show it now.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has said, on their website -http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/sites/dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/files/imported/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/57/14/180852003GBI-TraceEvidence.pdf states -

"Note: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together, or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless."

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

I think we will leave it there. Next time you play the lottery, bet on a horse, or play roulette, ask yourself, which one will offer me the highest probability of a win?

.

I challenge you, yet again, to tell us -given the facts of the case and known fiber transfer science- to explain why one must be more probable than the other. Should be very simple.

 

[BOESP]

and you have to wonder, if these panties were a gift, why they were put away in a drawer? Wouldn't they have been wrapped like the other presents, and stored, like the other presents, in the basement? I'm confused about what gifts were packed for Michigan. Were they still at the house, or were they already aboard the plane?

Patsy's story was (paraphrased) JonBenet pitched a hissy to have the day-of-the-week panties. Patsy told her they were too big but JonBenet persisted, Patsy gave in, told her to go ahead and put them in the panty drawer, and Patsy thinks to herself, "I'll just get some more." Patsy says she didn't get the big panties wrapped and mailed in time to make it to the niece for Christmas, meaning the first package bought that ended up in JonBenet's panty drawer. I believe the niece was sister Polly's daughter who lived in Georgia, maybe named Jenny?????:waitasec:

Sorry but I don't remember where the Michigan gifts were but John is said to have gone to the plane, maybe the afternoon of Christmas, to check things out, load some items, and make ready for the early trip on the morning of the 26th.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Patsy's story was (paraphrased) JonBenet pitched a hissy to have the day-of-the-week panties. Patsy told her they were too big but JonBenet persisted, Patsy gave in, told her to go ahead and put them in the panty drawer, and Patsy thinks to herself, "I'll just get some more." Patsy says she didn't get the big panties wrapped and mailed in time to make it to the niece for Christmas, meaning the first package bought that ended up in JonBenet's panty drawer. I believe the niece was sister Polly's daughter who lived in Georgia, maybe named Jenny?????:waitasec:

Sorry but I don't remember where the Michigan gifts were but John is said to have gone to the plane, maybe the afternoon of Christmas, to check things out, load some items, and make ready for the early trip on the morning of the 26th.

OT a little bit...but while you was mention about JR plane, it was interesting to learn from Kolar's book that JR pilot (after learning about JBR 'kidnapping' early in the morning) was offering to fly-out to pick-up JR childrens (JAR and Malinda) so they wouldn't need to wait to board the commercial plane...but JR refused, saying he needs him here, to be ready for whatever... :banghead:

 

[BOESP]

OT a little bit...but while you was mention about JR plane, it was interesting to learn from Kolar's book that JR pilot (after learning about JBR 'kidnapping' early in the morning) was offering to fly-out to pick-up JR childrens (JAR and Malinda) so they wouldn't need to wait to board the commercial plane...but JR refused, saying he needs him here, to be ready for whatever... :banghead:

That is interesting. I haven't gotten that far in Kolar's book yet.

I can think of several "meanings" in John Ramsey's statement "to be ready for whatever."

 

[DeeDee249]

By Patsy's own admission, she left the panties, along with other gifts for Jenny, behind with the intention of mailing them out after she returned from her trip. When you fly in a small private plane, every ounce is important. Patsy would never have taken along something that wasn't actually needed for the trip, especially something that was going to be given to someone who wasn't going to be there.
The police removed every single pair of panties in JB's drawer. NO size 12s were found, not there, not anywhere.
One place I believe the police did NOT search was the "partially unwrapped" gift boxes in the wineceller. I don't think they ever looked in them.

 

[dodie20]

By Patsy's own admission, she left the panties, along with other gifts for Jenny, behind with the intention of mailing them out after she returned from her trip. When you fly in a small private plane, every ounce is important. Patsy would never have taken along something that wasn't actually needed for the trip, especially something that was going to be given to someone who wasn't going to be there.
The police removed every single pair of panties in JB's drawer. NO size 12s were found, not there, not anywhere.
One place I believe the police did NOT search was the "partially unwrapped" gift boxes in the wineceller. I don't think they ever looked in them.

yesterday, I read a link to a Larry king/Steve Thomas interview, and Thomas was asked about PR's sister retrieving items from the house. He was really dumbfounded, and it emphasized, IMO, the lack of influence, Le had on this family. PR's sister was allowed to come and go, and take what she pleased, and nobody stopped her? She could have put things in her purse, her coat pockets, down her blouse, anywhere. I'm not saying she did, but she Could have, and nobody would have been none the wiser. Thomas said she went in to pick up funeral clotes. She should have been accompanied straight to the closet, and then accompanied straight back out, if that. I would have told the Rs to retrieve their own clothes, or go buy new ones. And then watched them like hawks if they showed up. MOO

 

[dodie20]

That is interesting. I haven't gotten that far in Kolar's book yet.

I can think of several "meanings" in John Ramsey's statement "to be ready for whatever."

It brings to mind those passports that PR's sister retrieved from the house, doesn't it?

 

[dodie20]

I've been giving this thread some serious thought. I haven't read Kolar's book yet, and it may change my mind, but as of right now, I don't think there's enough evidence to point to BR. This is my main problem with this case. The things that were done to JB were so horrible, that it's hard to imagine Anybody being responsible. But somebody Did do those things, so somebody is responsible. And after thinking about it, if I had to answer this thread's question, I'd say PR. I think she very possibly could have been abusing JB, and it went ignored, because she was the mom, and she could discipline her daughter, any way she saw fit. Maybe fueled by sleeping pills or booze, (JR admitted to taking a pill, and there was wine at the Ws dinner), but I think it's likely that she went into a rage that night...possibly over the feces problem. And yes, I think she was capable of using the garotte. Somebody was capable, and out of those 3, I think she was the most likely. Mainly because of their mother/daughter dynamics. In some ways, they seemed to be joined at the hip, and in other ways, PR seemed to be living through JB. The Rs said the pageants were just a fun little hobby, but JB was buried in a pageant dress and tiara, so the pageants obviously, mattered A LOT to PR. IMO, this was JB's identity, as far as PR was concerned. In some ways, the brutality from PR makes sense...especially if she was already abusing JB, and the abuse was escalating. Her explanation of rough cleaning, could have been a cover, in case the prior injuries were ever discovered. Also, and this is just MOO, but since PR seemed to live through JB, she might have identified herself with JB. In other words, killing JB, might have been almost like a suicide. PR knew her own days were numbered, so was this some sort of psychological pact? IDK, but neither JR nor BR, seemed to have much dynamic with JB. It was all about mother daughter. Also, and this has always nagged at me. Were some of the school moms really planning an intervention? If PR got wind of this, she would have been livid, and IMO, it could have played into her rage. All moo, but I've read that ransom note so many times, and I can't picture anybody but PR writing some of those things, especially the whole 'don't grow a brain', passage. And who else would use exclamation points? All moo, and I may change my mind after reading the book, because although PR seems the most likely suspect, IMO, I haven't ruled anybody out.

 

[BOESP]

[snipped]
All moo, and I may change my mind after reading the book, because although PR seems the most likely suspect, IMO, I haven't ruled anybody out.

This is where I am too dodie.

I'm on chapter six of Kolar's book. In the appendix is a section titled, "Alex Hunter's Affidavit Clearing Burke Ramsey, completed at the request of L. Lin Wood," dated 11 October 2000.

Why request this since according to what's been posted on Websleuths Colorado couldn't charge Burke anyway?

The affidavit clears Burke of "murder" and "homicide." That means either Wood, Hunter, or someone else in authority, believes the ligature strangulation was purposeful or at least that is how it would work in the state I live. If it was staging, in my state, it would likely be voluntary manslaughter, not murder. However, murder is homicide but not all homicides are murder...pretty clever wording for a legal document that doesn't mean diddly in court if Burke truly could not ever be charged with murder or any other type "homicide."

For it to be a murder charge, the DA's office must have believed the offender knew that JonBenet was not clinically dead prior to the asphyxiation and the offender was being merciful or at least merciful to themselves in that once she was strangled the offender would no longer have to stand around watching and waiting for her to die.

I'm also thinking time was running out on getting things prepared for the Intruder story so the stager had to get a move-on.

Also, the use of the word "murder" is interesting since, to me, it works well if an Intruder did it and it seems to me that is what Team Ramsey wanted the world to believe.

No one knows what goes on behind closed doors but Patsy is still my first choice.

 

[dodie20]

This is where I am too dodie.

I'm on chapter six of Kolar's book. In the appendix is a section titled, "Alex Hunter's Affidavit Clearing Burke Ramsey, completed at the request of L. Lin Wood," dated 11 October 2000.

Why request this since according to what's been posted on Websleuths Colorado couldn't charge Burke anyway?

The affidavit clears Burke of "murder" and "homicide." That means either Wood, Hunter, or someone else in authority, believes the ligature strangulation was purposeful or at least that is how it would work in the state I live. If it was staging, in my state, it would likely be voluntary manslaughter, not murder. However, murder is homicide but not all homicides are murder...pretty clever wording for a legal document that doesn't mean diddly in court if Burke truly could not ever be charged with murder or any other type "homicide."

For it to be a murder charge, the DA's office must have believed the offender knew that JonBenet was not clinically dead prior to the asphyxiation and the offender was being merciful or at least merciful to themselves in that once she was strangled the offender would no longer have to stand around watching and waiting for her to die.

I'm also thinking time was running out on getting things prepared for the Intruder story so the stager had to get a move-on.

Also, the use of the word "murder" is interesting since, to me, it works well if an Intruder did it and it seems to me that is what Team Ramsey wanted the world to believe.

No one knows what goes on behind closed doors but Patsy is still my first choice.

The word 'murder', Is interesting, and all kinds of interpretations could be read into its use. Like, he was cleared of 'murder', because no matter what he did, he was only 9, and investigators didn't believe he was mentally capable of 'murder'. If he was the perp, it would have been called something else? But, this seems unlikely, because I listened to Kolar's interview with Trisha, and his impression of investigators seemed to be a befuddled, ' hey, I wonder if the brother could have been involved', like the idea had never crossed their minds. sigh...