What about all these 3's?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'll give this another shot. Not sure they know the race from the DNA- if so, it hasn't been stated.

About the fibers...Let me start by saying that NO fibers are ever going to be the only ones in the world, even if the garment they came from is one-of-a-kind. That is why forensic specialists can ONLY classify fibers as being "consistent with" fibers from a particular piece of fabric or clothing.
Patsy did not own the ONLY sweater of that type in the world, nor JR the ONLY wool shirt made in Israel.
BUT- this is important- this is the whole key to the fibers' importance
LE must look at the whole picture and consider that the fibers match garments KNOWN to belong to the family. While others may (and surely somewhere in the world, do) the likelihood of TWO separate intruders wearing garments IDENTICAL to those belonging to the parents in the house WHEN and WHERE JB was killed and found on items particular to the crime (panties, cord knot, tape, paint tote) are virtually NON-EXISTENT.
And that is why this type of fiber analysis is allowed as evidence in court.. Not just in this crime, but others as well.
Here is another example. Let's say that the body of a child is found in the neighborhood of a suspect. Let's say that fibers from the carpets INSIDE the suspect's home are found on the body of that child. It would then link the child to having been in that suspect's home when she was killed or at some point before while wearing those clothes (i.e. that day).
This would be a BIG factor in placing that suspect WITH that child the day she was killed, regardless of where the body was found.

Does this help explain why the fibers are so incriminating?

Not really, because the very existence of R fibers isn't known.

I guess you didn't know, but police commonly use deceptive practices when interrogating suspects. That means THEY MAKE STUFF UP. Therefore, whatever you've gleaned from interviews needs to be sourced independently before I'll even discuss it.

For example, is there an independent lab or expert testifying on R fibers? Did the police or the DA make any statement pertaining to fibers outside these interrogations? If so, when and where?

Gotcha.

 

[DeeDee249]

Not really, because the very existence of R fibers isn't known.

I guess you didn't know, but police commonly use deceptive practices when interrogating suspects. That meand THEY MAKE STUFF UP. Therefore, whatever you've gleaned from interviews needs to be sourced independently before I'll even discuss it.

For example, is there an independent lab or expert testifying on R fibers? Did the police or the DA make any statement pertaining to fibers outside these interrogations? If so, when and where?

Gotcha.

You KNOW I already know that. Police may do that, yes. But not lawyers, no one presenting GJ evidence and NOT during the disclosure process. And I believe there was an independent lab- the police don't test these things themselves.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You KNOW I already know that. And I believe there was an independent lab- the police don't test these things themselves.

I dont believe there was an independent lab that concluded JR's shirt fibers were in JBR's underwear.

Its just something RDI read out of the interviews and ran with.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Rs gave an overall classic profile of their intruder. There list even has people looking for anyone they know that might have moved or sold a car right after the crime.... Come on, why would this person need to do either of those things? Its the most ridiculous profile for this case....

This is their profile......

Personality traits that may be recognized by someone that knows an individual who was in Boulder, CO on Christmas day 1996:

Judgmental: strong or persistently expressed opinions about organized religion, capitalism and US participation in global affairs.

Cold: one perceived as capable of acting without compassion that very well may be violent toward others, set fires or killed animals in the past.

Kidnap interest: may have described a fantasy or the risks of what it would be like to abduct someone.

Fascination and fantasy regarding little girls and boys.

Secretive: maintains spaces or possessions he is extremely protective of that is strictly off limits to others.

Bondage: discussed, demonstrated or practiced the construction of garrotes and/or other strangulation devices and body restraints on himself or others.

Stun Gun: having a stun gun and paid excessive attention to it by frequent maintenance, display and practice using it.

Someone that knows the person that took JonBenét’s life may have noticed one or more of the following scenarios following JonBenét’s murder at Christmas 1996:

Superficial wounds: Bruises scrapes or scratches on the face, neck or hands that were unexplained or for which the explanations changed.

Absent: nonattendance at work, church, school or other routine habits or hobbies.

Isolation: a spontaneous trip or sudden need to spend time alone.

Change of physical appearance: sudden new hair style or alteration of facial hair.

Intense interest: following case updates and news releases with heightened attention and focus.

New or used vehicle: abrupt and perhaps seemingly impulsive change in the car or truck he usually drove.

Relocation: a hasty change in geography relating to his living, working or regular friends and hangouts.

Collector of memorabilia: saving images or videos of JonBenét from newspaper, television or the internet

Vengeance: stating or hinting that the Ramsey’s – or JonBenét – are getting what they deserved.

Complimentary toward killer: impressed with perpetrator as a criminal mastermind while attributing great intelligence, skill or even luck.

Possessions: has items that came from the Ramsey home.

OK four of these items on your list (bold) are well documented multi-sourced matches to this MAAM's profile. And, this list isn't from the original profile published by the R's and their team of investigators back in 1997.

 

[DeeDee249]

I dont believe there was an independent lab that concluded JR's shirt fibers were in JBR's underwear.

Its just something RDI read out of the interviews and ran with.

No at all. Virtually NO police stations have forensic labs on site. Independent labs are always used.
Even most DOCTORS don't have labs on premises.

Anyone here have saved information on who did what testing for the BPD in this case?

 

[MurriFlower]

I'll give this another shot. Not sure they know the race from the DNA- if so, it hasn't been stated.

About the fibers...Let me start by saying that NO fibers are ever going to be the only ones in the world, even if the garment they came from is one-of-a-kind. That is why forensic specialists can ONLY classify fibers as being "consistent with" fibers from a particular piece of fabric or clothing.
Patsy did not own the ONLY sweater of that type in the world, nor JR the ONLY wool shirt made in Israel.
BUT- this is important- this is the whole key to the fibers' importance
LE must look at the whole picture and consider that the fibers match garments KNOWN to belong to the family. While others may (and surely somewhere in the world, do) the likelihood of TWO separate intruders wearing garments IDENTICAL to those belonging to the parents in the house WHEN and WHERE JB was killed and found on items particular to the crime (panties, cord knot, tape, paint tote) are virtually NON-EXISTENT.
And that is why this type of fiber analysis is allowed as evidence in court.. Not just in this crime, but others as well.
Here is another example. Let's say that the body of a child is found in the neighborhood of a suspect. Let's say that fibers from the carpets INSIDE the suspect's home are found on the body of that child. It would then link the child to having been in that suspect's home when she was killed or at some point before while wearing those clothes (i.e. that day).
This would be a BIG factor in placing that suspect WITH that child the day she was killed, regardless of where the body was found.

Does this help explain why the fibers are so incriminating?

Fibers can only be consistent with, but DNA is exclusive to the owner. How RDI can say, with a straight face, that the fibers are incriminating, while at the same time maintaining that DNA found is likely innocently placed, is a source of amusement.

 

[Agatha_C]

OK four of these items on your list (bold) are well documented multi-sourced matches to this MAAM's profile. And, this list isn't from the original profile published by the R's and their team of investigators back in 1997.

You're right it isnt. Its from his 2009 profile a much more recent profile....

 

[DeeDee249]

Fibers can only be consistent with, but DNA is exclusive to the owner. How RDI can say, with a straight face, that the fibers are incriminating, while at the same time maintaining that DNA found is likely innocently placed, is a source of amusement.

I don't think anything about this case is amusing.

The DNA, had it been semen, blood, saliva, would certainly be incriminating. But Touch DNA from too-easily transferrable skin cells ONLY on the clothing (and clothing JB and her parents ALL touched) and no where else diminishes it's importance immensely.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're right it isnt. Its from his 2009 profile a much more recent profile....

The MAAM matches four out of the first five characteristics. What about that?

 

[MurriFlower]

I don't think anything about this case is amusing.

The DNA, had it been semen, blood, saliva, would certainly be incriminating. But Touch DNA from too-easily transferrable skin cells ONLY on the clothing (and clothing JB and her parents ALL touched) and no where else diminishes it's importance immensely.

Only in your mind DD. While the fibers, that weren't exclusive, are all too easily transferrable, float and fly, have never been proven to have been in the garrote knot and as far as we know there being only four red fibers consistent with PR's jacket found (amongst many others) on the sticky side of the tape, are to you more compelling evidence?? Now that IS funny.

 

[Agatha_C]

The MAAM matches four out of the first five characteristics. What about that?

Its a standard list HOTYH, it can be expected that your MAAM, fits... If you thought I was going to be surprised, I wasnt. Thats why I posted it. Now everyone can see just how much time the Rs put into the case. They couldnt come up with a profile of their own, for their child's killer, they had use an in general profile. Makes sense when you think about it, why narrow the choices when you can expand it to 80% of all child predators.... Nice JR, real nice......

 

[BBB167893]

Not really, because the very existence of R fibers isn't known.

Except they ARE. I keep talking about how PR dug herself deeper in her comments about the fibers, but just for those of you who may not know what I'm talking about, I think it's time for a refresher.

In October 2002, TWO FULL YEARS after Kane and Levin told her about them, PR gave an interview, not to LE, but to a CBS reporter, where she tried to explain how her fibers could have ended up in the places they told her about. This is the exchange:

Erin Moriarty: (Talking to Patsy) "What do you think about these fibers?"

Patsy Ramsey: "After John discovered the body and she was brought to the living room. I laid eyes on her; I knelt down and hugged her. But I was, had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever I had on that morning are going to transfer to her clothing."

Ah, but this is where it gets interesting! Because it's completely at odds with everyone else's statements! JB's body had already been covered by a different blanket than the one that was used in the basement. And JR' OWN WRITINGS contradict her! I quote from the book DOI:

I pick her up...I run to the stairs, carrying my still child. I run to the living room and lay JonBenet on the rug in front of the Christmas tree...Patsy will be coming in the room...she must not see JonBenet like this. I get a blanket to cover JonBenet. I lay the blanket over her.

JR's account fits with those provided by ST's book and a FOX News report from 2001 in which it was stated that when PR threw herself on JB's body, she wasn't even on the top half. PR hadn't even come into the room, much less made contact with the body, so how in God's name could her fibers have wormed their way into the ligature knot of a cord the Rs claim was never even in their house until a few hours earlier? On that note, how did they get into the paint tray down in the basement when PR said she hadn't been IN the basement while wearing those clothes?

As Boston sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy commented, and I quote, "For Patsy's fibers to transfer to the items would require flat-out magic."

If PR's lawyer told her to say what she said, I sure hope she asked him for her money back!

I still got it!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Rs gave an overall classic profile of their intruder. There list even has people looking for anyone they know that might have moved or sold a car right after the crime.... Come on, why would this person need to do either of those things? Its the most ridiculous profile for this case....

This is their profile......

Personality traits that may be recognized by someone that knows an individual who was in Boulder, CO on Christmas day 1996:

Judgmental: strong or persistently expressed opinions about organized religion, capitalism and US participation in global affairs.

Cold: one perceived as capable of acting without compassion that very well may be violent toward others, set fires or killed animals in the past.

Kidnap interest: may have described a fantasy or the risks of what it would be like to abduct someone.

Fascination and fantasy regarding little girls and boys.

Secretive: maintains spaces or possessions he is extremely protective of that is strictly off limits to others.

Bondage: discussed, demonstrated or practiced the construction of garrotes and/or other strangulation devices and body restraints on himself or others.

Stun Gun: having a stun gun and paid excessive attention to it by frequent maintenance, display and practice using it.

Someone that knows the person that took JonBenét’s life may have noticed one or more of the following scenarios following JonBenét’s murder at Christmas 1996:

Superficial wounds: Bruises scrapes or scratches on the face, neck or hands that were unexplained or for which the explanations changed.

Absent: nonattendance at work, church, school or other routine habits or hobbies.

Isolation: a spontaneous trip or sudden need to spend time alone.

Change of physical appearance: sudden new hair style or alteration of facial hair.

Intense interest: following case updates and news releases with heightened attention and focus.

New or used vehicle: abrupt and perhaps seemingly impulsive change in the car or truck he usually drove.

Relocation: a hasty change in geography relating to his living, working or regular friends and hangouts.

Collector of memorabilia: saving images or videos of JonBenét from newspaper, television or the internet

Vengeance: stating or hinting that the Ramsey’s – or JonBenét – are getting what they deserved.

Complimentary toward killer: impressed with perpetrator as a criminal mastermind while attributing great intelligence, skill or even luck.

Possessions: has items that came from the Ramsey home.

Source please?

 

[MurriFlower]

No at all. Virtually NO police stations have forensic labs on site. Independent labs are always used.
Even most DOCTORS don't have labs on premises.

Anyone here have saved information on who did what testing for the BPD in this case?

Wouldn't the FBI or CIB or whatever have a lab? Like your doctor doesn't have a lab, but a hospital does.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Its a standard list HOTYH, it can be expected that your MAAM, fits... If you thought I was going to be surprised, I wasnt. Thats why I posted it. Now everyone can see just how much time the Rs put into the case. They couldnt come up with a profile of their own, for their child's killer, they had use an in general profile. Makes sense when you think about it, why narrow the choices when you can expand it to 80% of all child predators.... Nice JR, real nice......

Lets give that judgemental, cold, secretive kidnapper a pass, even if he has an unusual interest in movies and a disrespect for capitalism and this country? And was angry at the time?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[BBB167893]

Fibers can only be consistent with, but DNA is exclusive to the owner. How RDI can say, with a straight face, that the fibers are incriminating, while at the same time maintaining that DNA found is likely innocently placed, is a source of amusement.

Well, that's funny, Murri, because I don't find it the least bit amusing. And be more than happy to explain HOW I can do it, if not for the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've already done it!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Except they ARE. I keep talking about how PR dug herself deeper in her comments about the fibers, but just for those of you who may not know what I'm talking about, I think it's time for a refresher.

In October 2002, TWO FULL YEARS after Kane and Levin told her about them, PR gave an interview, not to LE, but to a CBS reporter, where she tried to explain how her fibers could have ended up in the places they told her about. This is the exchange:

Erin Moriarty: (Talking to Patsy) "What do you think about these fibers?"

Patsy Ramsey: "After John discovered the body and she was brought to the living room. I laid eyes on her; I knelt down and hugged her. But I was, had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever I had on that morning are going to transfer to her clothing."

Ah, but this is where it gets interesting! Because it's completely at odds with everyone else's statements! JB's body had already been covered by a different blanket than the one that was used in the basement. And JR' OWN WRITINGS contradict her! I quote from the book DOI:

I pick her up...I run to the stairs, carrying my still child. I run to the living room and lay JonBenet on the rug in front of the Christmas tree...Patsy will be coming in the room...she must not see JonBenet like this. I get a blanket to cover JonBenet. I lay the blanket over her.

JR's account fits with those provided by ST's book and a FOX News report from 2001 in which it was stated that when PR threw herself on JB's body, she wasn't even on the top half. PR hadn't even come into the room, much less made contact with the body, so how in God's name could her fibers have wormed their way into the ligature knot of a cord the Rs claim was never even in their house until a few hours earlier? On that note, how did they get into the paint tray down in the basement when PR said she hadn't been IN the basement while wearing those clothes?

As Boston sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy commented, and I quote, "For Patsy's fibers to transfer to the items would require flat-out magic."

If PR's lawyer told her to say what she said, I sure hope she asked him for her money back!

I still got it!

Glossed right over the source of all of your fiber testimony: interrogators who lied.

Where is the fiber expert testimony or report? Where is the BPD, DA, CBI, or FBI remarks on the fiber evidence, if its so darned important to the case?

Where is it? Nowhere. They lied and RDI bought it anyway because it sounds just as good now as when the interrogators lied to PR then.

 

[BBB167893]

Its a standard list HOTYH, it can be expected that your MAAM, fits... If you thought I was going to be surprised, I wasnt. Thats why I posted it. Now everyone can see just how much time the Rs put into the case. They couldnt come up with a profile of their own, for their child's killer, they had use an in general profile. Makes sense when you think about it, why narrow the choices when you can expand it to 80% of all child predators.... Nice JR, real nice......

That deserves a standing ovation. Yes, it's purely a boilerplate profile made up by people who had no access to any evidence other than what the Rs were telling them. Is it any wonder why the "intruder" profile and the people responsible for it were trashed by the entire profiling community and made a laughingstock?

 

[MurriFlower]

That deserves a standing ovation. Yes, it's purely a boilerplate profile made up by people who had no access to any evidence other than what the Rs were telling them. Is it any wonder why the "intruder" profile and the people responsible for it were trashed by the entire profiling community and made a laughingstock?

my bold

So what evidence did the R's have to pass on to their profilers if not "what the Rs were telling them"? Did the BPD or FBI put out a profile that contradicted any of this? Did they put out a profile on an IDI at all? Was there any serious PUBLIC attempt by any LE to actually locate a possible IDI?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That deserves a standing ovation. Yes, it's purely a boilerplate profile made up by people who had no access to any evidence other than what the Rs were telling them. Is it any wonder why the "intruder" profile and the people responsible for it were trashed by the entire profiling community and made a laughingstock?

But there's a MAAM who matches it.

If its so boilerplate, how come you can't match someone to it easily? Give it a go. If it wasn't someone who was dead or in jail at the time, I'm all ears.