Jane Valez Mitchell & other Media People Who Know Only Ramsey Spin Let's Educate Them

[Ames]

I saw this somewhere but I swear I forgot who said it and where but the cord was tested and no DNA was found on it.But this happened before touch DNA existed.And didn't they say the cord was destroyed back then and can't be tested anymore?
My biggest problem with IDI theories are that most sustain the idea that he came/left through the window.When you climb out through that window you obviously leave some hand/elbow prints outside,how else do you get out .If IDI I don't think he fed her the pineapple ,I hink JB had pineapple while BR was having his tea,the parents probably know about it but were advized to shut up.
Re the suitcase,shouldn't FW's prints be on it,on the piece of tape too?I still find it suspicious that he admitted touching them both.Same with the basement door.He already has explanations for all his prints down there.Dunno about this.

Doggone it, I wished that you could remember where you read that the cord had been tested. I have never heard that before...all that I know is that the fibers from Patsy's sweater were found entwined in it.

 

[madeleine]

Doggone it, I wished that you could remember where you read that the cord had been tested. I have never heard that before...all that I know is that the fibers from Patsy's sweater were found entwined in it.

Found it.

Q. Were you ever told by anyone that

22 the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to

23 see the garrote and to see the firsthand

24 original of the ransom note is because both

25 items were getting ready to be tested in a

1 fashion that would be destructive and that

2 from a strategical standpoint somewhere down

3 the road it might be advantageous for the

4 defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul

5 by saying that they didn't have a chance to

6 observe these pieces of evidence before they

7 were destroyed? Did you ever hear that

8 explanation given as to why the Ramsey

9 lawyers were allowed to look at those two

10 items?


ST depo

 

[MurriFlower]

Found it.

Q. Were you ever told by anyone that

22 the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to

23 see the garrote and to see the firsthand

24 original of the ransom note is because both

25 items were getting ready to be tested in a

1 fashion that would be destructive and that

2 from a strategical standpoint somewhere down

3 the road it might be advantageous for the

4 defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul

5 by saying that they didn't have a chance to

6 observe these pieces of evidence before they

7 were destroyed? Did you ever hear that

8 explanation given as to why the Ramsey

9 lawyers were allowed to look at those two

10 items?


ST depo

Do you have anything maddy for the fibers entwined in the garrote?

 

[madeleine]

Do you have anything maddy for the fibers entwined in the garrote?

Only this

In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:

•Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.
•Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.
•Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.
•Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0

 

[MurriFlower]

Only this

In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:

•Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.
•Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.
•Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.
•Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0

Thanks maddy, but that could have been written by RDI on this forum LOL. Perhaps someone else has something that is a direct quote (not ST)?

 

[Ames]

Thanks maddy, but that could have been written by RDI on this forum LOL. Perhaps someone else has something that is a direct quote (not ST)?

Bruce Levin: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "You were shown photographed wearing a red out..."

Patsy Ramsey: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "It's kind of a black and red and gray fleece"

Bruce Levin: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "Mrs. Ramsey, I have scientific evidence from forensic scientists that say there are fibers in the paint tray that match your red jacket"


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."

Lin Wood: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "Well, come on, what other sources did they test."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bold and red....by Ames

 

[MurriFlower]

Bruce Levin: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "You were shown photographed wearing a red out..."

Patsy Ramsey: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "It's kind of a black and red and gray fleece"

Bruce Levin: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "Mrs. Ramsey, I have scientific evidence from forensic scientists that say there are fibers in the paint tray that match your red jacket"


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."

Lin Wood: (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "Well, come on, what other sources did they test."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bold and red....by Ames

It's a pity those interviews are now not available on the net. I think though that this is the person who couldn't quite work out if it was a jacket, coat or sweater?? He kept changing the name throughout the interview? I think she was trying to say it wasn't only red, but he dismissed it. Like - was he colour blind?

 

[DeeDee249]

It really matters less what the garment was called than whether the fibers are a match.
That kind of garment might confuse most men- it is styled like a jacket and meant to be worn over another top like a jacket, and may have buttons like a jacket, but it is soft and a bit fuzzy like a sweater. Most women would not be confused, but a man might. Myself- I'd call it a sweater-jacket. I had one myself at one time made of polyester fleece.

 

[Ames]

It really matters less what the garment was called than whether the fibers are a match.
That kind of garment might confuse most men- it is styled like a jacket and meant to be worn over another top like a jacket, and may have buttons like a jacket, but it is soft and a bit fuzzy like a sweater. Most women would not be confused, but a man might. Myself- I'd call it a sweater-jacket. I had one myself at one time made of polyester fleece.

Exactly! Who cares what the garment was....the fact of the matter is...the fibers from that garment matched the fibers that were found inside of the paint tray, on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, on the STICKY (underside) of the tape over her mouth AND entwined in the garrotte. The type of garment hardly matters here.

 

[MurriFlower]

Exactly! Who cares what the garment was....the fact of the matter is...the fibers from that garment matched the fibers that were found inside of the paint tray, on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, on the STICKY (underside) of the tape over her mouth AND entwined in the garrotte. The type of garment hardly matters here.

Well, if I'm reading you right, you don't care what the garment was. Just that it implicated PR!!

Excuse me for saying that the LE probably didn't care much either.

However, if it was you they were trying to implicate in a murder, then you might be a little more interested in whether they were referring to a sweater, jacket or coat?

When questions are asked about garments whose fibers were purportedly found in incriminating 'areas' on the body of your dead daughter, you want to get it straight, and be clear that they actually know what they are talking about.

IF the red fibers were from the turtleneck sweater, then they should have said so.

IF the red fibers were from the red/black/grey jacket, then they should have said so.

They can't just say, in essence "oh, who cares, whatever you were wearing that night shed fibers that incriminate you". This is why I am sceptical.

It appears it was the red/black/grey jacket that was 'consistent with' fibers found. My original question was -- why only red fibers??

 

[Ames]

Well, if I'm reading you right, you don't care what the garment was. Just that it implicated PR!!

Excuse me for saying that the LE probably didn't care much either.

However, if it was you they were trying to implicate in a murder, then you might be a little more interested in whether they were referring to a sweater, jacket or coat?

When questions are asked about garments whose fibers were purportedly found in incriminating 'areas' on the body of your dead daughter, you want to get it straight, and be clear that they actually know what they are talking about.

IF the red fibers were from the turtleneck sweater, then they should have said so.

IF the red fibers were from the red/black/grey jacket, then they should have said so.

They can't just say, in essence "oh, who cares, whatever you were wearing that night shed fibers that incriminate you". This is why I am sceptical.

It appears it was the red/black/grey jacket that was 'consistent with' fibers found. My original question was -- why only red fibers??

Just like Dee Dee stated, it was hard to tell by looking at a picture, exactly what it was she was wearing. It was a sweater looking jacket. A jacket, but fuzzy like a sweater. So it was hard for him to know exactly WHAT to call it. And he never stated that the fibers were only red. He just stated that the fibers from her red jacket (didn't say red FIBERS) were found in the paint tote, on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, on the sticky side of the tape over JB's mouth, and entwined in the garotte. She turned over what she was wearing that night...whatever it was...a sweater, a jacket...a sweater jacket....a vest...a swimsuit....whatever it was she had on that night, she turned it over, it was tested...and the fibers matched the fibers found at the crime scene. BTW..I am not trying to be cocky or mean...or anything....I am just trying to explain why the fiber evidence was so important.

 

[MurriFlower]

Just like Dee Dee stated, it was hard to tell by looking at a picture, exactly what it was she was wearing. It was a sweater looking jacket. A jacket, but fuzzy like a sweater. So it was hard for him to know exactly WHAT to call it. And he never stated that the fibers were only red. He just stated that the fibers from her red jacket (didn't say red FIBERS) were found in the paint tote, on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, on the sticky side of the tape over JB's mouth, and entwined in the garotte. She turned over what she was wearing that night...whatever it was...a sweater, a jacket...a sweater jacket....a vest...a swimsuit....whatever it was she had on that night, she turned it over, it was tested...and the fibers matched the fibers found at the crime scene. BTW..I am not trying to be cocky or mean...or anything....I am just trying to explain why the fiber evidence was so important.

I think you're just as confused as LE. My understanding is that there were four red fibers found on the tape that were consistent with a garment worn by PR.

Was this a red garment (turtleneck sweather)?

Was this a red/black/grey garment (the jacket/coat)

I believe it was the latter, because this is the garment we have discussed previously and from what I can gather (without seeing the photos) was what she wore to the Whites. My question was simply if it came from a multicoloured garment, you would expect fibers from the other colours to have been represented there also, but these have never been mentioned by LE.

The confused questions between what the actual garment supposed to have been is likely a deliberate attempt to cover themselves, because as you know, they are not permitted to out and out lie about evidence in order to try and gain an admission.

 

[BBB167893]

Exactly! Who cares what the garment was....the fact of the matter is...the fibers from that garment matched the fibers that were found inside of the paint tray, on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, on the STICKY (underside) of the tape over her mouth AND entwined in the garrotte. The type of garment hardly matters here.

That goes for me, too.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, if I'm reading you right, you don't care what the garment was. Just that it implicated PR!!

Excuse me for saying that the LE probably didn't care much either.

Pardon ME for saying that I don't get why there's any argument at all!

However, if it was you they were trying to implicate in a murder, then you might be a little more interested in whether they were referring to a sweater, jacket or coat?

You'd think so. Problem is, PR admitted they were hers, her story was cr@p, etc., etc.

 

[BBB167893]

And he never stated that the fibers were only red. He just stated that the fibers from her red jacket (didn't say red FIBERS) were found in the paint tote, on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, on the sticky side of the tape over JB's mouth, and entwined in the garotte.

Possibly an important distinction...

BTW..I am not trying to be cocky or mean...or anything....I am just trying to explain why the fiber evidence was so important.

Doing a good job, IMO.

 

[cynic]

I saw this somewhere but I swear I forgot who said it and where but the cord was tested and no DNA was found on it.But this happened before touch DNA existed.And didn't they say the cord was destroyed back then and can't be tested anymore?

Q. Were you ever told by anyone that

22 the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to

23 see the garrote and to see the firsthand

24 original of the ransom note is because both

25 items were getting ready to be tested in a

1 fashion that would be destructive and that

2 from a strategical standpoint somewhere down

3 the road it might be advantageous for the

4 defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul

5 by saying that they didn't have a chance to

6 observe these pieces of evidence before they

7 were destroyed? Did you ever hear that

8 explanation given as to why the Ramsey

9 lawyers were allowed to look at those two

10 items?


ST depo

I believe Lin Wood was confused; the only item to be tested by a destructive technique was the ransom note. The destructive forensic technique in question was chemical fingerprint analysis.

Once the CBI’s handwriting analyst’s no longer needed the ransom note, the lab turned its attention to lifting fingerprints from the paper.
…
The CBI told the police and Pete Hofstrom that this would make the paper fibers swell, forever altering the relationship between the ink and the paper.
…
Hofstrom felt that the Ramseys should have the same chance to review the documents that the police had.
…
Patrick Burke presented Hofstrom with a list of conditions to be met before the CBI could test the note for the police.
He wanted access to the ransom note for the Ramseys’ own handwriting experts. In addition he wanted a first-generation copy of the note and 4 x 5 inch negatives of each page. Later the Ramseys’ attorneys set further conditions: they wanted to see the ligature and the “garrote” used to murder JonBenet.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 294-295

Steve Thomas believed that the concession regarding the ligature was just prior to the April 1997 interviews of the Ramseys, and was one of the conditions for the interviews proceeding.
It is unlikely that the ligature was “destroyed,” because ST says that the ligature was examined in November of 1997 by an RCMP expert on knots and cords. This would be about 6 months after Team Ramsey would have had access.
Also, there is no reason why the ligature would have to be “destroyed.”
(The ransom note would only be “destroyed” in the sense that it would no longer be usable to document examiners.)

“In the middle November, John Van Tassell of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one of the world’s foremost experts on knots and cords examined the ligature…”
JonBenet: inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 260

With respect to the RN, I believe that it may also be available for touch DNA testing depending on precisely which chemical procedure was used. If it was cyanoacrylate (super glue) “fuming,” then all is well. (That is one of the most popular methods.)

“Trace DNA profiles have been developed, even after processing for fingerprints, using cyanoacrylate fuming and metal deposition techniques on a variety of items, including knife handles. It is speculated that rather than jeopardize recovery of DNA bearing cells, the application of a very thin layer of acrylic through the fingerprint fuming process may help seal cells in place, to be removed later though swabbing.”
-Ray A. Wickenheiser, Journal of Forensic Sciences

“Latent prints are made visible using a variety of chemical and physical methods. Nonporous surfaces, (such as glass), are examined or "processed" using methods including cyanoacrylate ester ("superglue") fuming, luminescence (laser), dye staining, and traditional brush and powder. Porous surfaces, (such as paper), may be processed using chemical methods such as diazafluoren-one, ninhydrin, and physical developer. The exact processing sequence will depend upon a number of variables including surface type, environmental factors, the length of time elapsed since suspected handling, and the potentially destructive effects of each technique that would preclude subsequent examination by other methods or for other types of evidence.
Lasers are used to visualize fingerprints. Items are "superglued" and the superglue residue is stained with a luminescent dye. The item is then examined in a darkened room using the laser. Goggles are worn to filter out the colors of light the laser produces directly. Latent prints visualized with the laser are not visible to the naked eye in ordinary room light, and must be photographed.”
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/DLES/crimelabs/ident.asp

 

[Ames]

I think you're just as confused as LE. My understanding is that there were four red fibers found on the tape that were consistent with a garment worn by PR.

Was this a red garment (turtleneck sweather)?

Was this a red/black/grey garment (the jacket/coat)

I believe it was the latter, because this is the garment we have discussed previously and from what I can gather (without seeing the photos) was what she wore to the Whites. My question was simply if it came from a multicoloured garment, you would expect fibers from the other colours to have been represented there also, but these have never been mentioned by LE.

The confused questions between what the actual garment supposed to have been is likely a deliberate attempt to cover themselves, because as you know, they are not permitted to out and out lie about evidence in order to try and gain an admission.

Please..if you can...provide me with an interview...or something...that actually says that the fibers were red. Nowhere in the interview that I posted, does it say anything about the fibers being just red. It just says that fibers from Patsy's red jacket were found all over the crime scene.

 

[madeleine]

For everyone interested

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber Evidence

When a questioned fiber is compared to fibers from a known fabric source, a determination is made as to whether this fiber could have originated from the known fabric. It is not possible to say positively that a fiber originated from a particular fabric, although the inability to positively associate a fiber with a source in no way diminishes the significance of a fiber association. The wide variety of fiber types, fiber colors, and fabric types can make fiber associations very significant because the value of a fiber association depends on the type of fiber, the color of the fiber, the number of fibers transferred, the location of the recovered fibers, and other factors.

It could be very helpful to know the frequency of occurrence of a particular fabric and fiber, or how many fabrics with a particular fiber type and color exist, as well as who owns them. Such information, however, is extremely difficult to obtain. If the manufacturer of a fabric is known, the possibility exists that the number of fabric units produced could also be obtained, but this information is not always available. How many garments like this still exist, and where they are located, are still in question.

Once a particular fiber of a certain type, shape, and color is produced and becomes part of a fabric, it occupies an extremely small portion of the fiber/fabric population. Exceptions to this would be white cotton fibers and blue cotton fibers like those comprising blue jeans. There are other fibers that are common, but the majority of fibers of a particular type and color constitute a very small percentage of the total number of fibers that exist in the world.




more @link

 

[madeleine]

"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. An understanding of the mechanics of primary and secondary transfer is important when reconstructing the events of a crime."


How do we know that PR fibers (if such a report exists) didn't end up there by secondary transfer/someone elses clothing or hands.

 

[DeeDee249]

As I've said before- the important issue isn't how MANY jackets there were made of the same fibers as Patsy's jacket. I am sure there were thousands of fleece jackets made, if not more. What IS important is how many of those thousands of jackets were KNOWN to be IN THE R HOME THAT NIGHT. In this case the answer is exactly ONE. Patsy's jacket was the only jacket in the world KNOWN to be in the home that night.

Let's be serious- NO intruder would have gone up to Patsy's bedroom (where the parents were allegedly sleeping) to take the jacket. And the likelihood of a kidnapper/killer owning the IDENTICAL jacket and deciding to coincidentally wear it that SAME night while killing their daughter is well...ZERO. (pretty dressy clothes for a killer, anyway.)