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

[BBB167893]

"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.

Good question. Except that PR's own statement tried to account for it and was, to use modern slang, an epic fail.

 

[MurriFlower]

"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.

An excellent question maddy. While RDI is trying to implicate the Rs by suggesting secondary transfer of unknown DNA, (by PR shaking hands with someone then dressing her daughter), they give no credence at all to the possibility that FW or JR transferred fibers from the jacket PR was wearing that morning (and which they would have undoubtedly have touched) to the tape with a sticky surface.

Thank you for bringing this up.

 

[MurriFlower]

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.

As the information seems to have gone from the web, I'm trying to find it in the archives.

 

[Mysteeri]

Ames:

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.

From what I remember reading, there were red and black fibers. Right now I`m curious, if the claim that Patsy´s fibers "were all over the crime scene" is false, perhaps just interview tactics.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ames:


From what I remember reading, there were red and black fibers. Right now I`m curious, if the claim that Patsy´s fibers "were all over the crime scene" is false, perhaps just interview tactics.

That would be pretty risky. Had this gone to trial, which is what the police wanted, all evidence would have to be presented. This includes any fiber evidence they had, and of they didn't have it, it would have to be admitted.

 

[Ames]

Ames:


From what I remember reading, there were red and black fibers. Right now I`m curious, if the claim that Patsy´s fibers "were all over the crime scene" is false, perhaps just interview tactics.

Red and black? Yeah, that is what I remember reading too. If they were going to lie, why make it about the fibers? Why not tell her that her handwriting matched the RN, or why say it was fibers from Patsy's clothing...why not John's? If it had of gone to trial, and they were lying about the fibers...it is high likely that it would become a Mistrial...and I doubt that the investigators would have wanted that.

 

[Ames]

As the information seems to have gone from the web, I'm trying to find it in the archives.

Okay, any info that you can dig up would be appreciated, meanwhile...I will help you look. Thanks.

 

[Mysteeri]

Red and black? Yeah, that is what I remember reading too. If they were going to lie, why make it about the fibers? Why not tell her that her handwriting matched the RN, or why say it was fibers from Patsy's clothing...why not John's? If it had of gone to trial, and they were lying about the fibers...it is high likely that it would become a Mistrial...and I doubt that the investigators would have wanted that.

I think they did claim that her handwriting matched the RN in an interview. In another thread I asked the question: why did the BP not present the fibers (other than on the duct tape) as evidence in their presentation in 1998 for the DA to decide, whether to file a case against Patsy? Perhaps because it is not an established fact. Is the claim that Patsy`s fibers were on the paint tote and garrote made only in police interrogations or media stories? Does the same apply to the claim that John`s fibers were found on JB`s underwear, was it only interrogation tactics or at least not an undisputed fact?

Don`t know, but that´s what I want to find out next.

 

[BBB167893]

From what I remember reading, there were red and black fibers. Right now I`m curious, if the claim that Patsy´s fibers "were all over the crime scene" is false, perhaps just interview tactics.

That's highly unlikely, Mysteeri. For a couple of reasons. One, the canons of ethics expressly forbid prosecutors from making false statements. The punishment for breaking that rule can be anything from censure to losing one's law license. Secondly, the statements of PR herself and LS don't do Patsy any favors.

 

[BBB167893]

In another thread I asked the question: why did the BP not present the fibers (other than on the duct tape) as evidence in their presentation in 1998 for the DA to decide, whether to file a case against Patsy?

That's easy: because they probably didn't know yet. At the time the GJ was dismissed in 1999, there was still a lot of testing that had not been completed. The fibers in question weren't known until sometime in spring, 2000. That's the way I understand it.

Is the claim that Patsy`s fibers were on the paint tote and garrote made only in police interrogations or media stories?

Does it make a difference?

Does the same apply to the claim that John`s fibers were found on JB`s underwear, was it only interrogation tactics or at least not an undisputed fact?

Well, it's certainly disputed by JR and LW. Although, there method makes me wonder. Wendy Murphy wrote about these fibers in her book. It's a great read.

Don`t know, but that´s what I want to find out next.

I'll do what I can to help you.

 

[Roy23]

I think they did claim that her handwriting matched the RN in an interview. In another thread I asked the question: why did the BP not present the fibers (other than on the duct tape) as evidence in their presentation in 1998 for the DA to decide, whether to file a case against Patsy? Perhaps because it is not an established fact. Is the claim that Patsy`s fibers were on the paint tote and garrote made only in police interrogations or media stories? Does the same apply to the claim that John`s fibers were found on JB`s underwear, was it only interrogation tactics or at least not an undisputed fact?

Don`t know, but that´s what I want to find out next.

I do believe that most of this was just an interrogation tactic. I won't go as far to theorize that none of it is true but I will say it is my opinion that the BPD did not put their money where their mouth was. And Dave is wrong about what Police can and can't do. In the room, they will say almost anything to get a confession. But notice, in the courtroom, the tone changed when the had to present evidence.

Man, I can't wait until all of this stuff comes out in a book after the killer is caught.

 

[DeeDee249]

I can't wait, either. But I'm not too hopeful...

 

[BBB167893]

I won't go as far to theorize that none of it is true but I will say it is my opinion that the BPD did not put their money where their mouth was.

Aren't you the man who wants everyone to play things close to the vest?

And Dave is wrong about what Police can and can't do. In the room, they will say almost anything to get a confession.

Look again, Roy. I didn't say "police." I'm well aware of what they do in an interrogation. I said "prosecutors." They're under a much stricter code. In fact, let me provide you with it:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

For those of you who do not understand legalese, this means that if Kane, Levin and Morrissey were stupid enough to do what some suggest, they might face any number of reprimands up to an including having their law licenses revoked. That's just something to keep in mind.

Man, I can't wait until all of this stuff comes out in a book after the killer is caught.

Well, I don't know about after the killer is caught, but I'm doing my best!

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay, any info that you can dig up would be appreciated, meanwhile...I will help you look. Thanks.

"ST Deposition

18 Q. I think I understand you. The
19 red fibers, we're talking about the red
20 fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones
21 that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That were consistent or a likely
24 match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?
25 A. Yes.

251

1 Q. That was the red and black and
2 gray jacket that she was wearing?
3 A. I've always heard it referred to
4 as a red and black jacket, yes.
5 Q. It's the one in the photograph,
6 though, that was produced where they went
7 back a year afterwards and tried to find what
8 they were wearing, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that
11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,
12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket
13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?
14 A. Until you told me that right now,
15 no.
16 Q. So I assume that no request, that
17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites
18 to give articles of clothing with respect to
19 this investigation?
20 A. They may have been asked to give
21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.
22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

252

1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.

"

 

[Roy23]

Aren't you the man who wants everyone to play things close to the vest?



Look again, Roy. I didn't say "police." I'm well aware of what they do in an interrogation. I said "prosecutors." They're under a much stricter code. In fact, let me provide you with it:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

For those of you who do not understand legalese, this means that if Kane, Levin and Morrissey were stupid enough to do what some suggest, they might face any number of reprimands up to an including having their law licenses revoked. That's just something to keep in mind.



Well, I don't know about after the killer is caught, but I'm doing my best!

There won't be any book. You don't have any clout in the investigation and quite frankly this is about a dead child, not a game where we read a bunch of opinions and write books about stuff that was said 15 years ago.

 

[BBB167893]

There won't be any book.

There most likely won't be any intruder, either.

You don't have any clout in the investigation

What's your point? I never claimed to have any. You and other IDIs have stated that an "everyman" outlook on this case would be interesting.

and quite frankly this is about a dead child, not a game where we read a bunch of opinions and write books about stuff that was said 15 years ago.

I'm about the LAST person who needs to be reminded of what this is about. I've never treated any aspect of this as though it were any sort of game.

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave:

That's easy: because they probably didn't know yet. At the time the GJ was dismissed in 1999, there was still a lot of testing that had not been completed. The fibers in question weren't known until sometime in spring, 2000. That's the way I understand it.

John`s fibers were implied later, but I remember (can`t say for sure) Patsy`s fibers on the paint tray and on the garrote were mentioned in PMPT before the presentation (and a lot else), that`s why I was surprised at the lack of evidence. But I`m not sure anymore what comes from PMPT, what elsewhere.

About interview tactics. Ok, I guess the question also is: what exactly is a false statement- it appears- they said.

SuperDave

Does it make a difference?

Right, depends on the article and the sources used.

SuperDave:

Well, it's certainly disputed by JR and LW. Although, there method makes me wonder. Wendy Murphy wrote about these fibers in her book. It's a great read.

I think they wanted expert opinion, proof? Edit. Sentence about WM deleted, don`t know anything about her. Second edit, oh, now I do, I don`t think I`ll read her book.

Btw. It matters nothing to me to say that "Patsy/John reacted suspisciously"- the R`s are damned if they do, damned if they don`t. They reacted differently to the fiber claims- one tried to give an explanation, one said impossible- both were judged.

SuperDave:

I'll do what I can to help you.

You information and help is welcomed (it might be useful to know that I`m more "new school"- type).

 

[cynic]

The following is a list of notable people who have been openly skeptical about the exoneration of the Ramseys and have sought to place the DNA evidence in its proper perspective.

Dr. Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven

Dr. Michael Baden, Former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York

Dr. Cyril Wecht, Former Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Bob Grant, Former Adams County District Attorney

Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy District Attorney

Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado

Wendy Murphy, Former prosecutor and author.

Mark Fuhrman, Former LAPD detective and author.


Dr. Cyril Wecht

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgt9yMZCvbI[/ame]

Dr. Michael Baden

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFpkBGI-6A[/ame]

 

[BBB167893]

John`s fibers were implied later,

They weren't implied. They were said straight out.

but I remember (can`t say for sure) Patsy`s fibers on the paint tray and on the garrote were mentioned in PMPT before the presentation (and a lot else), that`s why I was surprised at the lack of evidence.

I'm pretty sure they weren't.

About interview tactics. Ok, I guess the question also is: what exactly is a false statement- it appears- they said.

That COULD be interpreted as a false statement in and of itself if they knew that they had no basis to state that.

Right, depends on the article and the sources used.

Okay.

I think they wanted expert opinion, proof?

I've heard that argument. But as ST said about the 2000 interviews where this exchange took place, it was less an attempt at a helpful exchange of information and more an attempt at public relations posturing. As usual, they made a whole list of demands in order to hold the meetings and Michael Kane became so angry with LW's stonewalling (or as IDI euphemistically phrases it, "wanting proof") that he threatened to walk out. It's something of a minor miracle that the meetings took place at all.

Quite frankly, if it hadn't been for LW, the interviewers may very WELL have given the expert opinion right there. See, I don't believe this nonsense about a big LE conspiracy to "get" the Rs. That only happens in the movies. I legitimately believe that the interviewers were trying to give PR and JR a legitimate chance to explain those fibers in an innocent way so they could MOVE ON from them. I'm not naive; obviously, it would have been a great boon if they had gotten a confession from one or both of them over it, but if they had, it would have been no one's fault but the Rs' themselves. Hit or miss, at least they took a swing. And as far as I'm concerned, it was a grand slam worthy of Ted Williams. Or it would have been if LW's phaser weren't permanently set to "attack."

Edit. Sentence about WM deleted, don`t know anything about her.

I'd be more than happy to tell you.

Second edit, oh, now I do, I don`t think I`ll read her book.

That's a shame. I HIGHLY recommend it. Mark Fuhrman's too. I'd like to know what you found out that would make you say that.

Btw. It matters nothing to me to say that "Patsy/John reacted suspisciously"-

Obviously. It matters to some people, that's for sure.

the R`s are damned if they do, damned if they don`t.

That's certainly the narrative they want advance. Not that I believe it.

They reacted differently to the fiber claims- one tried to give an explanation, one said impossible-

1) PR did not try to give an explanation. That was the whole point. She didn't give one until two years later to an uncritical media interviewer, and it was yet another glaring inconsistency.

2) Yes, JR did say it was impossible. He didn't say why.

both were judged.

Maybe they SHOULD be. Look, Mysteeri, let me show you where I'm coming from. You told me once that you lived in Finland (I think it was). Well, here in the US, the Constitution allows those suspected of crimes certain rights, and it doesn't matter whether you're a power-broker or a pig-farmer. While the Warren Court expanded those rules far beyond what the Founding Fathers had in mind (and beyond reason, in my view--I'll tell you that story later), one of the undeniable rights is to not be forced to talk to the police. They can't force you to talk to them. That's fine. They shouldn't be able to. That's what they mean when they say, "you have the right to remain silent." But that's all it is: a right to remain silent. It does not give you the right to lie, or to manipulate events. I can fully understand the Rs not talking to the police, guilty OR innocent. For example, it doesn't bother me in the least that they refused to take a polygraph test. If it were ME, even if I KNEW I was innocent, I still wouldn't take one. That's fine. If they don't want to talk to the cops, we should not judge them. When they pull stupid stunts to claim "cooperation" or tell falsehoods, they SHOULD be judged.

You information and help is welcomed

And I'll give you nothing but the absolute best I can give.

(it might be useful to know that I`m more "new school"- type).

I had a feeling.

 

[Ames]

"ST Deposition

18 Q. I think I understand you. The
19 red fibers, we're talking about the red
20 fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones
21 that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That were consistent or a likely
24 match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?
25 A. Yes.

251

1 Q. That was the red and black and
2 gray jacket that she was wearing?
3 A. I've always heard it referred to
4 as a red and black jacket, yes.
5 Q. It's the one in the photograph,
6 though, that was produced where they went
7 back a year afterwards and tried to find what
8 they were wearing, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that
11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,
12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket
13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?
14 A. Until you told me that right now,
15 no.
16 Q. So I assume that no request, that
17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites
18 to give articles of clothing with respect to
19 this investigation?
20 A. They may have been asked to give
21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.
22 Q. There were no black fibers that
23 were found on the duct tape that were said
24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy
25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

252

1 A. It's my understanding that the
2 four fibers were red in color.

"

Patsy's sweater fibers were found on the blanket that JB was wrapped in, entwined in the garotte, inside the paint tote...ALONG with being on the underside of the duct tape. It doesn't say in the above interview that you posted, what color the fibers from the other locations were...only that there were RED fibers found on the duct tape. Since the question was specific to the duct tape...that makes me even more sure that the fibers found in the other locations were red AND black. It's all in the wording.