The "war",what was it all about

[Chrishope]

Intriguing,
The complicating factor in this case is the staging. It can be, and is, confused with bona fide forensic evidence.

This is why there are so many RDI theories. When in reality there should only be three.

If you accept the above then its easy to see how particular theories can be arrived at, yet be false.


All three assumptions might be correct, but your conclusion false, because the existence of Burke's knife does not prove he was present at the staged crime-scene. Someone else, for any other reason, might have used the knife, potentially manufacturing restraints?


ITA. This is staging, plain and simple.


This is where the staging kicks in. Its hiding or masking what really took place, with you filling in with your theory.

Here is something controversial. Nearly everyone, icluding Kolar, is saying the BDI happened down in the basement.

I do not think so. Why? Because JonBenet was relocated, from the primary crime-scene to the wine-cellar, specifically to hide where it all began.

Both parents were fully involved in the staging, and depending on how you view the bloodstains on JonBenet's body and clothing, you can make assumptions about who did what when, e.g. JR wiped JonBenet down, his fibers are on her crotch, this might have preceded any redressing in the size-12's?

Patsy's fibers are embedded into the knotting of the garrot, they are on the underside of the duct-tape, placed over JonBenet's mouth, and to be found in the paint-tote, whch of course is outside of the wine-cellar. These fiber instances leave no room for doubt that they arrived upon JonBenet by chance.

There is blood from JonBenet on the Barbie Nightgown and on a pillow in her bedroom.

This suggests to me that prior to being taken down to the basement JonBenet was lying on her own bed, in her bedroom?

What transpired, depends on your theory. If its BDI, could Burke have attempted to stage JonBenet in her own bedroom, e.g. it might have all started in his bedroom?

Someone, at some point thought the best staging would be if JonBenet was found dead in her own bed, the victim of a viscious sexual assault.

For some reason this was changed, JonBenet was redressed and made to appear as if she had just been taken from her bed, and the parents version of events corroborates this.

So stuff associated with the bedroom staging was dumped into the wine-cellar along with JonBenet.

Doing all this would remove suspicious objects from her bedroom, e.g. partially opened Christmas Gifts, Barbie Nightgown, and the Barbie Doll. All of the latter play into a BDI or PDI.

So the R's have created the illusion that JonBenet has been kidnapped. Between the two versions, in theory, no extra time has been purchased. In the bedroom staging, JonBenet will be found immediately, and the R's will become prime suspects, in the second wine-cellar staging, its just the time for the canine squad or standard house search teams to find the body, which might have been half an hour or so. So the R's expected JonBenet to be found quickly in both cases.

The difference is that in the wine-cellar staging, there is no obvious sexual assault, and IDI is in your face, as promoted by Lou Smit.

So the body had to be moved so to accomodate the fact that she had been kidnapped, and to hide her from view.

Here are a few observations. JonBenet was whacked on the head and strangled, why so? Why not whack her again until she is dead?

The flashlight: Was removed from the staged bedroom crime-scene and and someone else wiped it clean. This can mean only one of two things: non-ramsey fingerprints are on the batteries, or that an R changed the batteries when they ran out half way through the night?

It could be that the head bash is part of the bedroom staging, and its failure to be visually obvious, contributed towards the decision to stage an abduction?


JonBenet's death is a sexual assault gone wrong, and the wine-cellar as a staged coverup.



.

The fiber evidence is meaningless. You don't know how the fibers got there.

W/o doubt PR was wearing the red jacket the night of the 25th, and w/o doubt had contact with JBR. The fibers easily could have transfered, by primary transfer, from PR to JBR, then the killer could have transferred them, secondarily, to the tote, garrotte, etc. Or it could be a combination, since it's PR"s tote, she could have made an innocent primary transfer to the tote prior to LHP taking it to the basement on the 22nd. The tote, a container, would not have transferred
fibers unless someone put their hands in the tote.

We have no way at all to determine how the fibers got on the various objects.

Fibers are lost at an exponential rate, under normal circumstances. Dead body's however do not loose fibers so quickly because they are not in motion. If we knew the number of fibers, we might make an educated guess. We might be able to say the number is more or less likely to be from primary transfer. Or, if we knew the number of fibers in other areas of the house, we might compare and say the number of fibers near the WC was X times greater therefore most likely primary transfer. But we have no baseline. We don't know what a "large" or "small" number of fibers is. The jacket to my knowledge has not been tested for fiber shedding under simulated activity (activity one might suspect PR of)

It certainly could be that the fibers are near the WC and on the garrotte because PR was there doing evil deeds. OTOH, it could simply be secondary transfer from JBs body to the other objects.

There is no way to determine which it is. Any choice is arbitrary and capricious. Might just as well forget the fibers, and try to solve the crime with meaningful evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

The fiber evidence is meaningless. You don't know how the fibers got there.

W/o doubt PR was wearing the red jacket the night of the 25th, and w/o doubt had contact with JBR. The fibers easily could have transfered, by primary transfer, from PR to JBR, then the killer could have transferred them, secondarily, to the tote, garrotte, etc. Or it could be a combination, since it's PR"s tote, she could have made an innocent primary transfer to the tote prior to LHP taking it to the basement on the 22nd. The tote, a container, would not have transferred
fibers unless someone put their hands in the tote.

We have no way at all to determine how the fibers got on the various objects.

Fibers are lost at an exponential rate, under normal circumstances. Dead body's however do not loose fibers so quickly because they are not in motion. If we knew the number of fibers, we might make an educated guess. We might be able to say the number is more or less likely to be from primary transfer. Or, if we knew the number of fibers in other areas of the house, we might compare and say the number of fibers near the WC was X times greater therefore most likely primary transfer. But we have no baseline. We don't know what a "large" or "small" number of fibers is. The jacket to my knowledge has not been tested for fiber shedding under simulated activity (activity one might suspect PR of)

It certainly could be that the fibers are near the WC and on the garrotte because PR was there doing evil deeds. OTOH, it could simply be secondary transfer from JBs body to the other objects.

There is no way to determine which it is. Any choice is arbitrary and capricious. Might just as well forget the fibers, and try to solve the crime with meaningful evidence.

Chrishope,

The fiber evidence is meaningless. You don't know how the fibers got there.

Yes I do. Both PR and JR transferred them when staging the death of JonBenet!

Simples.

If you think otherwise prove the fibers arrived in the wine-cellar by some other mechanism.

Mere assertion is not proof that neither JR or PR were not involved in staging the death of JonBenet.

It certainly could be that the fibers are near the WC and on the garrotte because PR was there doing evil deeds. OTOH, it could simply be secondary transfer from JBs body to the other objects.

Not really, we have been over this before, and there is nothing to prevent the R's transferring the fibers as described. Secondary transfer is simply an alternative explanation that is very much weaker than that of the R's doing direct transfer.

The chances of Patsy's fibers ending up in all those different locations, and John's Israeli shirt fibers flying through the air, and the wine-cellar door, blanket, her longjohns and her size-12's to attach themselves to her groin, all happening as secondary transfer is extremely fanciful.

Normally when my theory conflicts with the forensic evidence I review my theory!


.

 

[Chrishope]

Intriguing,

Could be, something at the last minute made them decide not to dump her outdoors.

Yes, PR's phone call to the police at a few minutes before 0600. That's what changed the plan. Clearly then PR is not involved prior to the 911 or she'd never have made the call when she did.

One thing is certain the R's expected JonBenet to be found, and found rather quickly. When this never happened, John had to discover her.

This almost certainly wasn't the plan, as the body would have been found along with a RN and no one would believe the kidnapping story. The Rs were intelligent people. They'd never have left a RN and a body. If they were working together, the RN would have given them all day and all night the 26th to dump the body.

It's clear from the RN that the author did not want the reader to call 911. The warnings are repeated several times. Clearly then, the RN was written primarily to buy time to dispose of the body.

The only way to make sense of it is to see that PR was not in on the plan and screwed JR's plan by calling 911.

Once the 911 call was made, then yes, the culprit would have to assume the body would be found quickly. When it wasn't, he needed to discover it as it was going to be found sooner or later. If later it's hard for the police to believe anything but one or both parents put her there to hide her from the cops. That's what it would look like.

JonBenet's person was staged to remove apparent evidence of the acute sexual assault, and its possible that the missing piece of paintbrush handle was used to injure JonBenet internally, thereby hopefully obscuring any signs of chronic abuse .

Yes.

The Barbie Doll and Pink Barbie Nightgown found in the wine-cellar are likely remnants of a prior staging.

Likely the nightgown was stuck to the blanket as it came out of the dryer. Likely JBR brought the doll with her to the basement. Likely they are both in the WC, with the body, so that they won't be seen and tip off someone that JBR had been down there.

Whether its JDI or BDI after the head bash it looks as if someone cleaned JonBenet up, redressed her in whatever and placed her in her bedroom, there is blood on her pillow, so it appears she may have been staged there as some IDI scenario?

Quite possible. But then again, the bedroom could have been the local of the original, acute, abuse.

This, for whatever reason was abandonded, and the Abduction Scenario was chosen, with as much incriminating evidence, including JonBenet, being dumped, out of sight, into the wine-cellar.

Which is completely inconsistent with an abduction scenario, if one assumes the police will search.

I can see no reason, if JR/PR were working together on a coverup, not to proceed with the disposal of the body. What would have made them change their mind? And if something did change their mind, why not re-stage for a (somewhat) believable home invasion scenario - a scenario which would include destroying the RN.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Yes I do. Both PR and JR transferred them when staging the death of JonBenet!

Simples.

If you think otherwise prove the fibers arrived in the wine-cellar by some other mechanism.

Mere assertion is not proof that neither JR or PR were not involved in staging the death of JonBenet.



Not really, we have been over this before, and there is nothing to prevent the R's transferring the fibers as described. Secondary transfer is simply an alternative explanation that is very much weaker than that of the R's doing direct transfer.

The chances of Patsy's fibers ending up in all those different locations, and John's Israeli shirt fibers flying through the air, and the wine-cellar door, blanket, her longjohns and her size-12's to attach themselves to her groin, all happening as secondary transfer is extremely fanciful.

Normally when my theory conflicts with the forensic evidence I review my theory!


.

Let me see if I have this straight.

You assert, w/o proof, that the fibers got there from primary transfer as the Rs both did their evil deeds.

I point out that it can't be known how the fibers got there, and offer no assertion as to primary or secondary transfer.

Then you tell me mere assertion isn't proof.

I never denied that the fibers could have been transfered by PR. I only said that it doesn't have to be the case that they were transferred by PR.

Why is secondary transfer a weaker theory, in your opinion. What science are you basing this on?

The chances of Patsy's fibers ending up in all those different locations, and John's Israeli shirt fibers flying through the air, and the wine-cellar door, blanket, her longjohns and her size-12's to attach themselves to her groin, all happening as secondary transfer is extremely fanciful.

Again, I'm not saying it was secondary, I'm saying we can't know. Please tell us why, in your opinion, secondary transfer is fanciful? What are you basing your opinion on?

Normally when my theory conflicts with the forensic evidence I review my theory!

Actually, it's been my observation that you tend not to review your theory when it conflicts with forensic evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, PR's phone call to the police at a few minutes before 0600. That's what changed the plan. Clearly then PR is not involved prior to the 911 or she'd never have made the call when she did.



This almost certainly wasn't the plan, as the body would have been found along with a RN and no one would believe the kidnapping story. The Rs were intelligent people. They'd never have left a RN and a body. If they were working together, the RN would have given them all day and all night the 26th to dump the body.

It's clear from the RN that the author did not want the reader to call 911. The warnings are repeated several times. Clearly then, the RN was written primarily to buy time to dispose of the body.

The only way to make sense of it is to see that PR was not in on the plan and screwed JR's plan by calling 911.

Once the 911 call was made, then yes, the culprit would have to assume the body would be found quickly. When it wasn't, he needed to discover it as it was going to be found sooner or later. If later it's hard for the police to believe anything but one or both parents put her there to hide her from the cops. That's what it would look like.



Yes.



Likely the nightgown was stuck to the blanket as it came out of the dryer. Likely JBR brought the doll with her to the basement. Likely they are both in the WC, with the body, so that they won't be seen and tip off someone that JBR had been down there.



Quite possible. But then again, the bedroom could have been the local of the original, acute, abuse.



Which is completely inconsistent with an abduction scenario, if one assumes the police will search.

I can see no reason, if JR/PR were working together on a coverup, not to proceed with the disposal of the body. What would have made them change their mind? And if something did change their mind, why not re-stage for a (somewhat) believable home invasion scenario - a scenario which would include destroying the RN.

Chrishope,

Which is completely inconsistent with an abduction scenario, if one assumes the police will search.

But this is what took place. The R's assumed JonBenet was going to found rather quickly. In one scenario, immediately, in another, I'm guessing, certainly before the time limit setout in the RN?

It's clear from the RN that the author did not want the reader to call 911. The warnings are repeated several times. Clearly then, the RN was written primarily to buy time to dispose of the body.

And how could John have known, if JonBenet was not found quickly, that he would be allowed to dispose of the body?

Without the parents fibers all over JonBenet and related artifacts in the wine-cellar your theory might have some traction. But both PR and JR can be placed at the scene of the crime.

Then there is the issue that the Ransom Note is fake, its staging, how seriously it was ever meant to be taken is open to question.

I would not place too much importance on the Ransom Note in any RDI theory.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Let me see if I have this straight.

You assert, w/o proof, that the fibers got there from primary transfer as the Rs both did their evil deeds.

I point out that it can't be known how the fibers got there, and offer no assertion as to primary or secondary transfer.

Then you tell me mere assertion isn't proof.

I never denied that the fibers could have been transfered by PR. I only said that it doesn't have to be the case that they were transferred by PR.

Why is secondary transfer a weaker theory, in your opinion. What science are you basing this on?



Again, I'm not saying it was secondary, I'm saying we can't know. Please tell us why, in your opinion, secondary transfer is fanciful? What are you basing your opinion on?



Actually, it's been my observation that you tend not to review your theory when it conflicts with forensic evidence.

Chrishope,

I'm saying we can't know.

LOL, so its case closed then?

Actually, it's been my observation that you tend not to review your theory when it conflicts with forensic evidence.

Which suggests my theories must be quite inconsistent, therefore, you must not take anything I post too seriously, and just ignore me completely!


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

LOL, so its case closed then?



Which suggests my theories must be quite inconsistent, therefore, you must not take anything I post too seriously, and just ignore me completely!


.

Why would the case be closed? There is other evidence to consider.

What is you proof of primary transfer? What in the literature of fiber analysis gives us the idea that we know whether these fibers are from primary or secondary transfer.

You seem quite convinced that it's primary transfer. Could you pleas just share with the rest of us what science you are basing your opinion on?

 

[UKGuy]

Why would the case be closed? There is other evidence to consider.

What is you proof of primary transfer? What in the literature of fiber analysis gives us the idea that we know whether these fibers are from primary or secondary transfer.

You seem quite convinced that it's primary transfer. Could you pleas just share with the rest of us what science you are basing your opinion on?

Chrishope,
The same science that your opinion is based on. Except you require secondary transfer for your theory to be consistent.

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
The same science that your opinion is based on. Except you require secondary transfer for your theory to be consistent.

.

I'm not using fiber evidence to arrive at my theory of the case because I don't think there is a way to determine whether the fibers are there due to primary transfer, or due to secondary transfer.

So, we cannot be basing our opinions on the same science.

So, since you've asserted that you "know" the fibers are there from primary transfer, please share with us how you have determined that. Is it the color of the fibers? The lenghth? widhth? type of fabric? number of fibers found? Is it the number of JBR's fibers also found on PR's jacket -e.g. cross transfer? What allows you to "KNOW" that the fibers are there from primary transfer?

It is true that if my (actually docG's) theory of the case is correct then PRs red jacket fibers are there from secondary transfer. But I do not assert JDI based on the fiber evidence because, again, I don't think we can determine whether the transfer is primary or secondary, from the known (publicly available) fiber evidence.

If you can show me why the fibers must have been there from primary transfer, and could not have been there from secondary transfer, I will be happy to change my theory of the case.

 

[BOESP]

Why would the case be closed? There is other evidence to consider.

What is you proof of primary transfer? What in the literature of fiber analysis gives us the idea that we know whether these fibers are from primary or secondary transfer.

You seem quite convinced that it's primary transfer. Could you pleas just share with the rest of us what science you are basing your opinion on?

What is your proof John Ramsey wrote the note, other than your seemingly agreeing with docg's premise?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The location of the fibers are incriminating in and of themselves. Docg made a sweeping statement on this board that Patsy's fibers were found all over JonBenet and should be since Patsy was JonBenet's mother (or words to that effect) thus the fibers are of no consequence. Now I have a problem with sweeping generalities but I don't have a problem with fibers found, as far as is known, only in incriminating places on objects Patsy states she had no contact with (was she lying? ... past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior). If not, please docg, tell us the source for stating Patsy's fibers were found all over JonBenet.

 

[Chrishope]

What is your proof John Ramsey wrote the note, other than your seemingly agreeing with docg's premise?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The location of the fibers are incriminating in and of themselves. Docg made a sweeping statement on this board that Patsy's fibers were found all over JonBenet and should be since Patsy was JonBenet's mother (or words to that effect) thus the fibers are of no consequence. Now I have a problem with sweeping generalities but I don't have a problem with fibers found, as far as is known, only in incriminating places on objects Patsy states she had no contact with (was she lying? ... past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior). If not, please docg, tell us the source for stating Patsy's fibers were found all over JonBenet.

I can't prove JR wrote the note. Just as you can't prove PR wrote the note. If PR/JR were working together, IMO they would not have called 911 with the body in the house. Since PR called, she must not be in on it. Therefore, JR must be the author.

The location of the fibers is not incriminating. It would be incriminating if we could trace those fibers to an intruder. You might look at the Wayne Williams case for example, where multiple victims had carpet fibers consistent with Williams' car and home carpet. But in the JBR case we have only one victim, and the fibers are from people who live in the house and have regular innocent contact with JBR.

It boils down to this - there is no way to distinguish whether the fibers got there from primary transfer or secondary transfer. So, the fiber evidence is inconclusive.

We don't know if fibers were "all over" JBR or not, I think doc is trying to point out that they could be, since JBR lived with PR/JR and they had regular contact. We don't know how many fibers were found, we don't know how that fiber count compares to other places in the house - and that's relevant because if the fiber count near the WC is much much greater, it means PR was probably there. If it's lower, she may not have been there. We don't know about cross transfer either, was JBRs clothing tested for the presence of PR's fibers? Was it a lot? A little? Was it there from primary or secondary transfer?

In short, all we have is fibers belonging to the people who live in the house w/o any way of knowing how the fibers got there. It's no more conclusive than finding PR/JR fingerprints. It's no more conclusive than the touch DNA. Fibers from the home owners would be commonplace, and w/o the ability to distinguish between primary/secondary transfer the fibers don't tell us anything. You can't just say the fibers are there, therefore we've found the murderer.

You can try this - same question I asked UKGuy - Prove that the fibers are there from primary and not secondary transfer. What is your method? What is the science? What is it about the fibers that allows you to be confident that they are from primary and not secondary transfer? The location won't do it. There may have been red jacket fibers on JBR's clothing, and they may have secondarily transferred to the other objects. Or it may have been from primary transfer by PR while she killed JB. But how can we tell? Please tell us the method by which primary and secondary transfer can be distinguished given the publicly available fiber evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not using fiber evidence to arrive at my theory of the case because I don't think there is a way to determine whether the fibers are there due to primary transfer, or due to secondary transfer.

So, we cannot be basing our opinions on the same science.

So, since you've asserted that you "know" the fibers are there from primary transfer, please share with us how you have determined that. Is it the color of the fibers? The lenghth? widhth? type of fabric? number of fibers found? Is it the number of JBR's fibers also found on PR's jacket -e.g. cross transfer? What allows you to "KNOW" that the fibers are there from primary transfer?

It is true that if my (actually docG's) theory of the case is correct then PRs red jacket fibers are there from secondary transfer. But I do not assert JDI based on the fiber evidence because, again, I don't think we can determine whether the transfer is primary or secondary, from the known (publicly available) fiber evidence.

If you can show me why the fibers must have been there from primary transfer, and could not have been there from secondary transfer, I will be happy to change my theory of the case.

Chrishope,

I'm not using fiber evidence to arrive at my theory of the case because I don't think there is a way to determine whether the fibers are there due to primary transfer, or due to secondary transfer.

Precisely the reason why someone else can claim the parents directly transferred those fibers, and you cannot say otherwise, because you assert such knowledge is indeterminable.

Fiber analysis is normally like touch-dna, it can place someone at the location of crime-scene, but it does not prove they were there.

Yet in the R's case Patsy stated she had not been in the basement that day or evening. The day she wore her red jacket. And John similarly did not wish to be disrespected when faced with evidence that fibers from his Israeli manufactured shirt were found on JonBenet's crotch.

So, since you've asserted that you "know" the fibers are there from primary transfer, please share with us how you have determined that. Is it the color of the fibers? The lenghth? widhth? type of fabric? number of fibers found? Is it the number of JBR's fibers also found on PR's jacket -e.g. cross transfer? What allows you to "KNOW" that the fibers are there from primary transfer?

It is the color of the fibers, it is the length, it is the fabric, which from the shirt and jacket were dress clothing, not your standard mass market leisure ware. Then there is the actual fiber analysis report.

So thats how I know the parents were present at the crime-scene.

Whilst of course your position is:

, I don't think we can determine whether the transfer is primary or secondary, from the known (publicly available) fiber evidence.

That you cannot arrive at a particular conclusion, or lack knowledge regarding any particular object, does not mean anyone else cannot do so!


.

 

[Intriguing]

Chrishope, to isolate one moment, the 911 call, I am curious as your interpretation 'If PR/JR were working together, IMO they would not have called 911 with the body in the house. Since PR called, she must not be in on it. Therefore, JR must be the author.'

IS it agreed that the call was preceded by Patsy commenting 'Hon we need 'em.'? Whether this comment was to John or to Burke offstage, it sounds and is couched in far less distraught language than the actual conversation with the operator. Similarly John's final comment 'we're not talking to you.' It's the change in tone that, to me, implies Patsy was indeed involved compounded by her repetition of the final phrase 'SBTC Victory!' A consciously cryptic epilogue that bears far less importance than JB's potential beheading.

It seems (not provable obviously) that here was the author of the note restating her brilliantly (in her own mind) enigmatic final flourish???

 

[Intriguing]

Incidentally, has anyone had 'She's Buried in The Cellar' for SBTC yet?

 

[BOESP]

I can't prove JR wrote the note. Just as you can't prove PR wrote the note.<snipped for brevity>

I didn't claim Patsy wrote the note and you have proclaimed John Ramsey did write it. We all have opinions. Your proclamations come across as pedantic. I don't agree with the logic and analysis methodology you and docg seem to use so I won't comment on your posts again.

 

[Chrishope]

I didn't claim Patsy wrote the note and you have proclaimed John Ramsey did write it. We all have opinions. Your proclamations come across as pedantic. I don't agree with the logic and analysis methodology you and docg seem to use so I won't comment on your posts again.

OK No problem

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, to isolate one moment, the 911 call, I am curious as your interpretation 'If PR/JR were working together, IMO they would not have called 911 with the body in the house. Since PR called, she must not be in on it. Therefore, JR must be the author.'

IS it agreed that the call was preceded by Patsy commenting 'Hon we need 'em.'? Whether this comment was to John or to Burke offstage, it sounds and is couched in far less distraught language than the actual conversation with the operator. Similarly John's final comment 'we're not talking to you.' It's the change in tone that, to me, implies Patsy was indeed involved compounded by her repetition of the final phrase 'SBTC Victory!' A consciously cryptic epilogue that bears far less importance than JB's potential beheading.

It seems (not provable obviously) that here was the author of the note restating her brilliantly (in her own mind) enigmatic final flourish???

I'm not sure what to make of the various 911 call tapes and transcripts. I have never heard the tape where Burke and John are supposed to be talking. I've relied on transcripts.

I certainly don't think Steve Thomas made up the Burke/John talking at the end of the tape, but he's human and he could be mistaken as to what it says.

I'm working on my theory of the case for the members theories thread, and in doing so, I've found that while a lot of people claim to have heard it, there does not seem to be any tape available to the public. If you know of one please post it. So I can't really comment on JR's post-911 conversation. I don't know what, if anything he said.

I'm not sure about the "Hon we need 'em" part either. That's what it sounds like to me, but that version, on Youtube was new, at least to me. I had not heard that version before. The problem with things posted on Youtube is you can't really say whether or not it's been altered. The ability to alter images and sounds is quite advanced today, most people with a PC sitting on their desk have the potential to do that. (I don't, because I don't know how, but many people can)

But let's assume that the tape is genuine and that PR is saying "Hon we need 'em". I agree with you that the tone of voice seemed to be different. She did not seem to be in a panic. So, I wonder, if the tape is authentic, what was going on. IMO she and JR could not have been discussing whether or not to call because calling makes no sense while the body is still in the basement. At least it makes no sense to me.

It could be that the final phrase was simply in response to the operator's question, which was something along the lines of "Who is the note from?" (I don't think that's the exact quote but that's the jest of it) She would naturally look to the bottom which is where people sign, if they are going to. (Though why anyone would leave a signature, or a acronym I'm not sure.)

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,


Precisely the reason why someone else can claim the parents directly transferred those fibers, and you cannot say otherwise, because you assert such knowledge is indeterminable.

You can assert it all you like, but that doesn't make it so. All we are saying is the fiber evidence, against PR, is inconclusive, so it's better to set it off to the side and not use it as part of your theory of the case.

Fiber analysis is normally like touch-dna, it can place someone at the location of crime-scene, but it does not prove they were there.

Yet in the R's case Patsy stated she had not been in the basement that day or evening. The day she wore her red jacket. And John similarly did not wish to be disrespected when faced with evidence that fibers from his Israeli manufactured shirt were found on JonBenet's crotch.

PR didn't need to be in the basement for her fibers to be there.

It is the color of the fibers, it is the length, it is the fabric, which from the shirt and jacket were dress clothing, not your standard mass market leisure ware. Then there is the actual fiber analysis report.

Did the report specifically state that the fibers were there due to primary transfer?

So thats how I know the parents were present at the crime-scene.

You don't know any such thing. You may assert it as much as you like, but it will remain a mere assertion until you can prove primary transfer.

Whilst of course your position is:


That you cannot arrive at a particular conclusion, or lack knowledge regarding any particular object, does not mean anyone else cannot do so!


.

Not my position at all. My position is that neither I, nor, you, nor anyone else can say, with certainty, whether those red jacket fibers are there from primary or secondary transfer.

But if you know of a way to determine whether it's primary or secondary I'm sure we'd all be interested.

The red jacket fiber evidence is inconclusive.

 

[UKGuy]

You can assert it all you like, but that doesn't make it so. All we are saying is the fiber evidence, against PR, is inconclusive, so it's better to set it off to the side and not use it as part of your theory of the case.

PR didn't need to be in the basement for her fibers to be there.



Did the report specifically state that the fibers were there due to primary transfer?

You don't know any such thing. You may assert it as much as you like, but it will remain a mere assertion until you can prove primary transfer.

Not my position at all. My position is that neither I, nor, you, nor anyone else can say, with certainty, whether those red jacket fibers are there from primary or secondary transfer.

But if you know of a way to determine whether it's primary or secondary I'm sure we'd all be interested.

The red jacket fiber evidence is inconclusive.

Chrishope,
You keep changing your story to suit whatever is placed in front of you. One minute its , I don't think we can determine whether the transfer is primary or secondary, from the known (publicly available) fiber evidence. and of course what you really mean is I not the first person plural.

You are asserting that you cannot know, you cannot speak for other members!

Did the report specifically state that the fibers were there due to primary transfer?

What do you think, you reckon they suggested they wafted in on a gush of Colorado air?

Yet LW adopted your position and attempted to rubbish the report, requesting the results and data of all the scientific tests, otherwise they could never be entered at the discovery phase.

You do yourself no favours by only addressing the forensic evidence that is favourable to your theory. This is why you assert nobody can obtain knowledge regarding how the fibers arrived in the wine-cellar. Otherwise your theory is toast!

Another aspect I would cite is Locard's exchange principle:

Essentially, Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator(s) will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene.

“ Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value. ”

—Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.

Since we all know why you cannot determine if the fibers arrived in the wine-cellar because both parents colluded in the staging.

So we can call it a day on this subject and accept you consider the matter inconclusive.


.

 

[otg]

I'm not sure what to make of the various 911 call tapes and transcripts. I have never heard the tape where Burke and John are supposed to be talking. I've relied on transcripts.

I certainly don't think Steve Thomas made up the Burke/John talking at the end of the tape, but he's human and he could be mistaken as to what it says.

I'm working on my theory of the case for the members theories thread, and in doing so, I've found that while a lot of people claim to have heard it, there does not seem to be any tape available to the public. If you know of one please post it. So I can't really comment on JR's post-911 conversation. I don't know what, if anything he said.

I'm not sure about the "Hon we need 'em" part either. That's what it sounds like to me, but that version, on Youtube was new, at least to me. I had not heard that version before. The problem with things posted on Youtube is you can't really say whether or not it's been altered. The ability to alter images and sounds is quite advanced today, most people with a PC sitting on their desk have the potential to do that. (I don't, because I don't know how, but many people can)

But let's assume that the tape is genuine and that PR is saying "Hon we need 'em". I agree with you that the tone of voice seemed to be different. She did not seem to be in a panic. So, I wonder, if the tape is authentic, what was going on.

The tape with the ""Hon, we need a (or 'em)..." is genuine. But don't even try to listen to it at Youtube -- the sound quality will not be good. Download the original digital recording that is readily available.

I think hearing the additional voices is like separating the sound of different instruments in a symphony. At first you hear the melody as a harmonious single sound. But once you've heard some subtle sound of say a flute within the song, you will always be able to pick it out afterwards because you know exactly what it sounds like and what to listen for.

I still haven't heard JR's voice, but I can definitely make out the sound of a child saying, "What did you..." before the recording is cut off.

Interpret what you hear to mean what you want. It can certainly be taken to mean different things.

IMO she and JR could not have been discussing whether or not to call because calling makes no sense while the body is still in the basement. At least it makes no sense to me.

I still believe (and I'll keep repeating it) that all four members of the Ramsey family were down in the basement during the 911-call. The call was made from the phone on the table down in the basement.

It could be that the final phrase was simply in response to the operator's question, which was something along the lines of "Who is the note from?" (I don't think that's the exact quote but that's the jest of it) She would naturally look to the bottom which is where people sign, if they are going to. (Though why anyone would leave a signature, or a acronym I'm not sure.)

She couldn't look to the bottom of the RN at that time because according to her and JR, he was squatted down on the floor in his skivvies (not a very pretty visual there, eh) reading the note spread out on the floor. PR had to have remembered the "Victory, SBTC".
.