|
Fervent Ramsey supporters try to fight the damaging fiber evidence tooth and nail, trying to muddy the waters by alleging that all this was "a police ploy intended to corner the Ramseys".
But this is not true. For the year 2000 interviews with the Ramseys were conducted by attorneys and NOT police officers.
And attorneys are covered by a code of ethics. They can not lie to anyone during an interview, and that includes suspects. It's quite different than police officers, who are not bound by those ethics. Thanks to knowledgeable posters here and on other forums who have pointed this out!
From Patsy's 2000 interview:
8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.
Considering the fact that Levin is a lawyer bound by a code of ethics which does not permit him to lie during an interview, am I reading this right: fibers matching a shirt of John's were found both in JB's underpants as well as in the crotch area itself? For if yes, this is indeed totally incriminating evidence, and SuperDave's info was correct (he said that fibers from John's shirt were found in JB's crotch area too).
|