Crime scene staging?

[MurriFlower]

Who knows? But at that point, it COULD have been. The jacket was not taken into evidence that night, as it should have been (another BPD mistake) but the longjohns never left police custody. THAT was my point.

The fibers supposedly found would not have been altered either by being laundered or dry cleaned. There was no suggestion of any other 'evidence' contined in the jacket.

 

[madeleine]

If you were a guilty Ramsey and lucky cause they didn't even ask for your clothes for a year,would you have delivered the SAME jacket that you know will incriminate you?I wouldn't,would you?Maybe they delivered some other clothes(they even said they are NOT sure what they were wearing) and LE trapped themselves by bluffing that the fibers match.

 

[madeleine]

Didn't ST say in his book that PR's jacket seemed NEW?

 

[madeleine]

I really don't think that a lawyer would advise you in such a situation to deliver the same clothes,come on,his advice would be "say you don't remember" (escape route),deliver something else and we'll spin the results by claiming hey I told you I am not sure if those are the ones you were talking about!You can't even take this to court if a lawyer will keep on saying hey we're not sure WHAT we delivered,a match is not relevant anymore.It can be disputed in 1000 ways,especially since LE didn't ask for the clothes for a year.LOL

 

[MurriFlower]

I really don't think that a lawyer would advise you in such a situation to deliver the same clothes,come on,his advice would be "say you don't remember" (escape route),deliver something else and we'll spin the results by claiming hey I told you I am not sure if those are the ones you were talking about!You can't even take this to court if a lawyer will keep on saying hey we're not sure WHAT we delivered,a match is not relevant anymore.It can be disputed in 1000 ways,especially since LE didn't ask for the clothes for a year.LOL

You know, I could not tell you what I wore for last Christmas day and I didn't suffer the trauma of having my child murdered!!

I've said before, regardless of what clothes they gave, I'm pretty sure that there would have been incriminating evidence of some description 'found'. This of course has never been actually sighted, it was only stated during interview, more as a question. So we found this evidence, how do you explain it? Their lawyer advised them not to answer a hypothetical question and asked LE to 'show and tell' but despite maintaining that they had evidence, they declined to produce it. After all this time, I'm pretty sure if it had existed, they would have used it. Not much use 'reserving' such evidence now is there?

 

[madeleine]

Q. (By Mr. Levin) 1.Mrs. Ramsey, I
10 have scientific evidence from forensic
11 scientists that say that there's fibers in
12 the paint tray that match your red jacket.


2.13 I have no evidence from any scientist to
14 suggest that those fibers are from any source
15 other than your red jacket.

Okay,to me the first part and the second are two different things.The second doesn't make the first one more credible.What is he actually saying.That it must be her fibers because they couldn't find any others sources OR her fibers are a match .
Is nr.1 a a conclusion drawn from number 2 or is number 1 a fact
:waitasec:

 

[madeleine]

St,page 281

"Beginning in January 1998,packages of clothing arrived,most of it of questionable value.For instance,we received two grocery sacks containing Patsy's clothing.The first contained a High Sierra red turtleneck.It smelled brand-new,straight off the rack.The other was a short-sleeved sweater top that was much too small for her,unless she was going for a really tight fit.She had worn neither on Christmas Day."Gimme a break",a detective snorted."

----------

"In other words,anything that might turn up couldn't be traced back to the Ramseys.
In that they were wrong,for the labs pulled one of their biggest surprise findings of the case out of those bags. rolleyes"



Pay attention to the last part.Isn't that the most hilarious contradiction ever?GMAB

So it's either ST is LYING AGAIN or the fiber evidence is pure bs!Sorry!

 

[madeleine]

Even they thought the R's delivered other clothes and were trying to fool them,lol then how come those (new)clothes(that PR never wore before) matched the fibers at the crime scene???????My good God..........................


:banghead::banghead::banghead::croc::banghead:

 

[MurriFlower]

Q. (By Mr. Levin) 1.Mrs. Ramsey, I
10 have scientific evidence from forensic
11 scientists that say that there's fibers in
12 the paint tray that match your red jacket.


2.13 I have no evidence from any scientist to
14 suggest that those fibers are from any source
15 other than your red jacket.

Okay,to me the first part and the second are two different things.The second doesn't make the first one more credible.What is he actually saying.That it must be her fibers because they couldn't find any others sources OR her fibers are a match .
Is nr.1 a a conclusion drawn from number 2 or is number 1 a fact
:waitasec:

Hmm, well it was not a RED jacket, but a RED, BLACK and GREY jacket she wore on Christmas day. How come only the RED fibers were found? Wouldn't you think the fibers would be found in the proportion they were represented in the jacket? 50/30/20 for example?

 

[madeleine]

Dunno I am still having lots of problems with all this LE "evidence" that points to RDI.What makes me still consider that a R could have done it has nothing to do with ST's "evidence" or LE/DA "evidence".It has to do with their behaviour,not the "matching" fibers or the "matching" handwriting.I am sick and tired of their(LE) games and I don't trust them.My RDI thoughts (which I admit have nothing to do with evidence) are not based on anything LE has to say,I am done with trusting them.(LE)

 

[Roy23]

Dunno I am still having lots of problems with all this LE "evidence" that points to RDI.What makes me still consider that a R could have done it has nothing to do with ST's "evidence" or LE/DA "evidence".It has to do with their behaviour,not the "matching" fibers or the "matching" handwriting.I am sick and tired of their(LE) games and I don't trust them.My RDI thoughts (which I admit have nothing to do with evidence) are not based on anything LE has to say,I am done with trusting them.

Maddy,

I think the reality is that the R's have suffered enough. If you were an R and you lost a child you would be scared and angry with LE's games. You would see they were focused on you from Day one and you would lawyer up just like they did. They did not act appropriately all the time but by all means they are victims.

 

[madeleine]

Maddy,

I think the reality is that the R's have suffered enough. If you were an R and you lost a child you would be scared and angry with LE's games. You would see they were focused on you from Day one and you would lawyer up just like they did. They did not act appropriately all the time but by all means they are victims.

I agree that LE focused on them from day one and I would lawyer up immediately as well.
There are other things that I don't get about their behaviour.Their first CNN appearance for ex.What I find weird about their behaviour doesn't necessarily make them guilty in my eyes,I just would like some explanations,maybe I would understand why they did or didn't this or that.For ex I'd be scared and angry yes,but I'de be scared of the intruder and angry with the intruder in the first place.Why did they say just a few days after the murder that they wanna move on and they just wanna know why,that's all?That is one thing kinda hard to swallow for me and this is what makes me think that if IDI JR knows a lot about the why and who.And if he's not telling then that's a big problem for me.

 

[madeleine]

What would you feel in such a situation,what would be predominant,
fear of being targeted or
angry and desperate to catch the monster who did this?

They weren't poor people.I think they were aware of the fact that it won't be so easy for LE to pin it on them if they were innocent.They knew how great their lawyers were.If you know you're innocent ,if you know that your army of lawyers are competent and able to protect you from LE games why the heck not go and sit down with them and get it over with.Yes they did answer questions but I don't understand why they made it all so hard for everybody,despite of those #$%^ cops who wanted to fry them.The goal should have been catching the killer and we all know that the first hours,days are crucial.Sit down with those #^%&$ cops ,let them fry you (YOU know you're innocent,the lawyers are present,what's the big deal),it's all in the victim's interest,you gotta sacrifice something for justice to be done.So they were too sick to go down to the police station but not so sick to sit down with LK on CNN.Maybe they thought they already answered all the questions the day of the murder,I know they talked to LE that day,great.But something's not right about this and this case at all,I dunno what it is but nothing makes sense.

 

[madeleine]

You'll think I am nuts but I believe the only two people who could have solved this case were ST and LS.Together.I recall reading about how they sat together nights after nights debating,two extremes,but passionate about their views.And I think they respected and listened to each other even if it was for a short while.But they both quit and started with bs on their own.SAD.And dissapointing.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmm, well it was not a RED jacket, but a RED, BLACK and GREY jacket she wore on Christmas day. How come only the RED fibers were found? Wouldn't you think the fibers would be found in the proportion they were represented in the jacket? 50/30/20 for example?

Patsy also wore a solid red sweater (possibly a turtleneck) under the red/black/gray fleece jacket. There has always been a lot of confusion over the word "sweater" as her jacket had been referred to as both a sweater and a jacket. But that being said, with any fabric made from multiple yarns, some may shed more than others. Maybe that's why only the red fibers shed. Just a thought.

 

[MurriFlower]

Patsy also wore a solid red sweater (possibly a turtleneck) under the red/black/gray fleece jacket. There has always been a lot of confusion over the word "sweater" as her jacket had been referred to as both a sweater and a jacket. But that being said, with any fabric made from multiple yarns, some may shed more than others. Maybe that's why only the red fibers shed. Just a thought.

That's probably the same red turtleneck UK Guy reckons PR used to strangle JBR. You two should get together!!

 

[BBB167893]

If you were a guilty Ramsey and lucky cause they didn't even ask for your clothes for a year,would you have delivered the SAME jacket that you know will incriminate you?I wouldn't,would you?

Depends on a few things, I guess.

Maybe they delivered some other clothes(they even said they are NOT sure what they were wearing) and LE trapped themselves by bluffing that the fibers match.

I don't buy it, for a couple of reasons.

 

[BBB167893]

Q. (By Mr. Levin) 1.Mrs. Ramsey, I
10 have scientific evidence from forensic
11 scientists that say that there's fibers in
12 the paint tray that match your red jacket.


2.13 I have no evidence from any scientist to
14 suggest that those fibers are from any source
15 other than your red jacket.

Okay,to me the first part and the second are two different things.The second doesn't make the first one more credible.What is he actually saying.That it must be her fibers because they couldn't find any others sources OR her fibers are a match .
Is nr.1 a a conclusion drawn from number 2 or is number 1 a fact
:waitasec:

I'd have to say that nr.1 is a fact and that nr.2 is used as support. The implication is clear: we've tested a lot of different materials. This was the one that even came close. I would also consider PR's reaction and later statements. PLUS the fact that Levin cannot lie about this.

 

[BBB167893]

St,page 281

"Beginning in January 1998,packages of clothing arrived,most of it of questionable value.For instance,we received two grocery sacks containing Patsy's clothing.The first contained a High Sierra red turtleneck.It smelled brand-new,straight off the rack.The other was a short-sleeved sweater top that was much too small for her,unless she was going for a really tight fit.She had worn neither on Christmas Day."Gimme a break",a detective snorted."

----------

"In other words,anything that might turn up couldn't be traced back to the Ramseys.
In that they were wrong,for the labs pulled one of their biggest surprise findings of the case out of those bags. rolleyes"



Pay attention to the last part.Isn't that the most hilarious contradiction ever?GMAB

So it's either ST is LYING AGAIN or the fiber evidence is pure bs!Sorry!

Neither. Look again:

a High Sierra red turtleneck Last I knew, the sweater in question was not a turtleneck.

Also:

She had worn neither on Christmas Day Ergo, neither was the matching item in question. Most likely, the matching item was delivered later on. Keep in mind, he's only describing the first batch.

In that they were wrong,for the labs pulled one of their biggest surprise findings of the case out of those bags.

THAT I agree with.

I don't see the point to this AT ALL. Not only did PR admit that they were hers in a way that contradicts the statements in her own book, Lou Smit even admitted that the fibers were incriminating.

 

[BBB167893]

Hmm, well it was not a RED jacket, but a RED, BLACK and GREY jacket she wore on Christmas day. How come only the RED fibers were found? Wouldn't you think the fibers would be found in the proportion they were represented in the jacket? 50/30/20 for example?

Well, a few things:

One, different fibers shed at different rates. But that's a moot point. The clothing in question was PR's sweater, not her jacket. Levin merely misspoke. Men often have trouble describing women's clothing.