Coincidences

[MurriFlower]

Why do we have to keep repeating these things= the toxicology tests on JB were negative. NO drugs or alcohol found in her system.
The pineapple is suspicious for the simple reason that her parents lied about feeding it to her. There was no reason to lie except that they wanted it to appear that she was not awake when they got home. But their own son told police she was, and walked into the house.

But what has her state of wakefulness got to do with her murder? If they were the killers, why would they lie about something like this? First rule of lying -- tell the truth as much as you can. So you lie about her being awake, then you have to also lie about her eating the pineapple. Why not just say she ate some pineapple and went to bed? If the pineapple has nothing to do with the crime (wasn't drugged etc), there is no reason not to say she ate it. Simple really!

 

[BBB167893]

Kindly post your opinion backed up by a source that directly relates to staff of the District Attorney's office and their interrogation of suspects. Relate it, if you will, to what I posted as guidelines for intrinsic and extrinsic misrepresentations and how these do not apply to the DA. Ta.

The canons of ethics state what they state. I can't say that I'm surprised it's not good enough for you.

You have absolutely no PROOF they are lying about this.

Oh, no? They say she couldn't have eaten any pineapple after they got home. But there it is.

Your rhetorical question 'who else would have fed it to her' or 'why would an IDI feed her pineapple' and 'why would she eat pineapple from a stranger' are based your own assumption that the parents were her killers.

You're wrong on both counts. One, they're not rhetorical (at least not necessarily). Two, one need not assume anything to ask such questions. Indeed, ANYONE would ask those questions.

Who, when, why are questions we don't know the answers to, all we know is that she ate pineapple before she died. So while a mystery to us, it has no bearing at all on her death. It would be a different story if she died from eating poisoned pineapple, but she didn't.

No, she didn't. But she did eat pineapple, and would have had to have done it within a specific period of time, a period of time that the Rs' story doesn't allow much time for.

And remove one of your bricks and whole wall comes crumbling down, because they have no substance, only what you have imagined they have. The pineapple, the fibers, the handwriting, the panties, the 911 call, etc, etc. Not evidence, all just illusion!!

Heard it all before, MF. Your assertion is the illusion; wishful thinking, nothing more.

 

[MurriFlower]

The canons of ethics state what they state. I can't say that I'm surprised it's not good enough for you.

It is what it is. Not what I asked for. If you don't have anything that says investigators cannot tell a lie if they are the District Attorney, I'd like to see it.

"False assertions vs. manufactured evidence

A Florida case offers further guidance with respect to making false statements to a suspect.2 In the Cayward case police created a fictitious crime lab report which indicated that Cayward’s DNA was found on the victim. After reading the report, Cayward confessed. At trial his confession was suppressed because of the court’s concern that such manufactured evidence may find its way into a court room and undermine the integrity of the evidential system. The significant language from Cayward is that a distinction must be made between, “Making false assertions and manufacturing evidence”. The implication is that Cayward’s confession would have been upheld had the investigator only made the false statement, “We have a crime lab report and your DNA was found on the victim.”

This same logic was applied in a recent New Jersey case to suppress a homicide confession.3 In preparation for the interrogation, investigators staged an audio-taped interview where a fellow investigator pretended to be an informant who witnessed the killing. Upon hearing the manufactured tape the suspect confessed. It should be made clear that the Cayward case does not prohibit an investigator from using visual props during an interrogation provided that the props would not reasonably be perceived as actual evidence against the suspect."

So, I think it is quite clear than an 'investigator' can say whatever he wants in order to get a confession. What he may not do is manufacture evidence. This is the reason why the fiber evidence was never produced.

 

[BBB167893]

It is what it is. Not what I asked for. If you don't have anything that says investigators cannot tell a lie if they are the District Attorney, I'd like to see it.

Like you said: it is what it is. It's all I need.

"False assertions vs. manufactured evidence

A Florida case offers further guidance with respect to making false statements to a suspect.2 In the Cayward case police created a fictitious crime lab report which indicated that Cayward’s DNA was found on the victim. After reading the report, Cayward confessed. At trial his confession was suppressed because of the court’s concern that such manufactured evidence may find its way into a court room and undermine the integrity of the evidential system. The significant language from Cayward is that a distinction must be made between, “Making false assertions and manufacturing evidence”. The implication is that Cayward’s confession would have been upheld had the investigator only made the false statement, “We have a crime lab report and your DNA was found on the victim.”

This same logic was applied in a recent New Jersey case to suppress a homicide confession.3 In preparation for the interrogation, investigators staged an audio-taped interview where a fellow investigator pretended to be an informant who witnessed the killing. Upon hearing the manufactured tape the suspect confessed. It should be made clear that the Cayward case does not prohibit an investigator from using visual props during an interrogation provided that the props would not reasonably be perceived as actual evidence against the suspect."

And again, the investigators in question were police officers, not lawyers representing the state.

So, I think it is quite clear than an 'investigator' can say whatever he wants in order to get a confession. What he may not do is manufacture evidence.

Yes, we've established that.

This is the reason why the fiber evidence was never produced.

I say that's nonsense. It wasn't produced because, unlike the Boulder DAs, these prosecutors knew better than to give the whole store away to the opposition. It doesn't matter anyway. PR SAID they were hers, and the explanation she gave was directly at odds with earlier statements both from police reports AND her own husband. She had two full years to come up with exactly the same "that was just a police lie to trick me" jazz you're trying to pass off now, and she didn't. That's the part IDI never addresses. Not that I blame you!

 

[MurriFlower]

I say that's nonsense. It wasn't produced because, unlike the Boulder DAs, these prosecutors knew better than to give the whole store away to the opposition. It doesn't matter anyway. PR SAID they were hers, and the explanation she gave was directly at odds with earlier statements both from police reports AND her own husband. She had two full years to come up with exactly the same "that was just a police lie to trick me" jazz you're trying to pass off now, and she didn't. That's the part IDI never addresses. Not that I blame you!

Oh, right. It took BPD ONE FULL YEAR to even ask for the clothes they were wearing that night. Now wouldn't you think that if they had any fibers that they suspected of belonging to the parents in suspicious places, they might have asked a little earlier? I've said before, regardless of what clothes they gave them, they would have been told that matching fibers had been found in incriminating places! The whole things a joke and you know it.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, right. It took BPD ONE FULL YEAR to even ask for the clothes they were wearing that night. Now wouldn't you think that if they had any fibers that they suspected of belonging to the parents in suspicious places, they might have asked a little earlier?

They TRIED to get them that whole year. They kept after the DA to issue warrants to get the clothes, and they wouldn't issue them. "Just ask," they said, a move which the FBI found ridiculous. So don't change the subject. If you don't want to address PR's problematic statements, that's fine by me. If I were in your position (and I was, mind you), I sure wouldn't EITHER.

I've said before, regardless of what clothes they gave them, they would have been told that matching fibers had been found in incriminating places!

Yeah, I know you've said it before. It wasn't any more true then, either. It's just the usual "LE-out-to-get-the-poor-Rs" conspiracy nonsense IDI's been trying to ram down our throats for years.

The whole thing's a joke and you know it.

Yeah, I know SOMETHING here is a joke, all right.

 

[MurriFlower]

They TRIED to get them that whole year. They kept after the DA to issue warrants to get the clothes, and they wouldn't issue them. "Just ask," they said, a move which the FBI found ridiculous. So don't change the subject. If you don't want to address PR's problematic statements, that's fine by me. If I were in your position (and I was, mind you), I sure wouldn't EITHER.

Yes, 'just ask', I agree, ridiculous, LOL. And in the finish, how DID they obtain the clothing from the Rs?? Warrants? Threats? Stealth? Theft? Nope, they 'just asked'. One year later.

Yeah, I know you've said it before. It wasn't any more true then, either. It's just the usual "LE-out-to-get-the-poor-Rs" conspiracy nonsense IDI's been trying to ram down our throats for years.
.

Just like the 'good old BPD' and 'bad old DA' that RDI's been ramming down our throats!

Yeah, I know SOMETHING here is a joke, all right

The joke is that the interviews show the type of tactics that investigators get up to when trying to trick a suspect into incriminating themselves (or their 'accomplice'). Ordinary folks really can't believe they would "actually lie", or that lying is LEGAL. The Rs lawyer was right onto it, because he understood exactly what they were doing, and he called their bluff. So next time you repeat these allegations, remember there has never been any evidence presented to confirm them. No, don't worry, I'll remind you!!

 

[DeeDee249]

But what has her state of wakefulness got to do with her murder? If they were the killers, why would they lie about something like this? First rule of lying -- tell the truth as much as you can. So you lie about her being awake, then you have to also lie about her eating the pineapple. Why not just say she ate some pineapple and went to bed? If the pineapple has nothing to do with the crime (wasn't drugged etc), there is no reason not to say she ate it. Simple really!

For their purposes, they want it believed that JB fell asleep in the car, was carried into the house, and they never saw her alive again. They had no idea the pineapple would show up in an autopsy, and frankly, I don't think they thought much about an autopsy at all at the time. For their purposes, they also wanted it believed that BR never woke up that morning; later JR admitted BR was awake but they felt it was better to "keep him out of it" by saying he was asleep the whole time.
Eating the pineapple after they arrived home makes her awake at that time. Her "wakefulness" means they lied about her being asleep (though their son said his sister was awake when they got home). It also places her time of death pretty close to the time they arrived home, only two hours at most. Figuring that most children go to bed before their parents (and they already said that BR stayed up a bit later with his father playing with a toy), let's say for argument's sake that they arrived home at 10 (they said this themselves). Then possibly BR went to bed around 10:30, followed by his parents around 11 (if they went to bed at all is another matter, I am just theorizing a timeline). Possibly Patsy was awake even later, as we all know moms have a lot of little details to finish up before a family trip. With JB eating a pineapple snack (maybe BR did too, for all we know) a little after 10, that places her TOD exactly when it would be to allow for a 2-hour digestion. And (here's the REAL reason to lie about the pineapple) that places her death at the hands of intruders MUCH too close to the time that her parents would very likely still be awake in the house, even if they were in their bedroom. Her scream around midnight places her death very close to that scream, and that also happens to correspond to where the pineapple would be if she ate it when they got home and died after the scream.
As you said, why lie about it at all? I agree- it was an innocent enough event, whether the intruder theory is true or not. So why lie? If an intruder fed her the pineapple (and remember Patsy's prints were on the bowl, no stranger prints- the bowl was not wiped like the flashlight was) then she was eating the pineapple with an intruder in the dining area while her father and brother were playing with a toy in the living room and her mother was getting stuff ready for the trip. THAT is why they had to lie. The timeline just doesn't add up. The finding of that pineapple at autopsy stunned them. They never even thought to put away the bowl. They simply didn't think it was an issue. It is because they lied that I feel they are strongly implicated in the events of that night.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, 'just ask', I agree, ridiculous, LOL.

Glad to hear it.

And in the finish, how DID they obtain the clothing from the Rs?? Warrants? Threats? Stealth? Theft? Nope, they 'just asked'. One year later.

When they had no other options. One can only wonder what might have happened if the DA had issued those warrants.

Just like the 'good old BPD' and 'bad old DA' that RDI's been ramming down our throats!

Apples and handgrenades, MF, and you know it. At least RDI's argument can be substantiated. But you obviously know that, or you wouldn't keep trying to redirect the issue.

The joke is that the interviews show the type of tactics that investigators get up to when trying to trick a suspect into incriminating themselves (or their 'accomplice').

Nonsense. The interviews show professional prosecutors doing their best to actually get somewhere and give the Rs a chance to help the investigation get past them. Instead, all they got was stonewalling on every single issue from a litigation attorney who was only interested in sticking a thumb in "the man's" eye. They also show PR coming darn close to cracking, as I believe she would have if not for LW's horsehockey.

Ordinary folks really can't believe they would "actually lie", or that lying is LEGAL.

I can believe it, and it is legal, when POLICE are doing it. You're trying to confuse the issue. It won't work with me, I can assure you.

The Rs lawyer was right onto it, because he understood exactly what they were doing, and he called their bluff.

The only thing he was onto was the usual: say you want an interview, stonewall all to hell, then claim you cooperated.

So next time you repeat these allegations,

And you better believe I will. Even Lou Smit said they were incriminating.

remember there has never been any evidence presented to confirm them.

And no evidence presented to refute them, either. All you've got is LW's say-so for it, and he's about as trustworthy as a scorpion. I'll be glad to go down that list for you sometime. Quite frankly, why you'd take the word of a litigation lawyer with an established reputation for fighting dirty over a team of first-rate prosecutors with winning records and impeccable reputations is beyond my understanding.

No, don't worry, I'll remind you!!

I have no doubt. I'll be happy to remind you of a few things, too.

 

[MurriFlower]

Is it a coincidence that the 'cord' from which the garrote was made looks very much like the laces from a basketball shoe, rather than that used to tie up boxes?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is it a coincidence that the 'cord' from which the garrote was made looks very much like the laces from a basketball shoe, rather than that used to tie up boxes?

Yes. It is a coincidence. Laces from a sports shoe or sneaker are not that long. It could also be said that the cord looks remarkably like the flat white cord piping on a navy sailor-type top JB is seen wearing in a school photo. I don't know if the photo is around any more, but she is angelic-looking, like a pretty little school kid, not like a pageant princess. Her hair is pulled back with a big navy bow, in the topknot style she was found in, with he back hanging loose instead of being pulled into a second ponytail. It is one of the sweetest photos of her out there. It has been noted that the flat white braid trim on the collar of that top look very similar to the garrote cord. Patsy did have many of JB's clothes custom made. Despite that, I feel the cord is exactly what LE said it was- standard nylon cord available at two locations in Boulder (McGukin's Hardware and the Army-Navy store). This type if cord is pretty common and widely available.
Aside from that, the garrote cord was matched against cord sold at those two locations and found to be the same type of cord. Matched for fiber content and weave.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes. It is a coincidence. Laces from a sports shoe or sneaker are not that long.

No, this is not correct. Laces can be purchased up to 72 inches long, but for standard high top basketball shoes of that era, laces are 52 inches long x 5/16" wide. The cord was said to be approximately 1/4" wide and made from synthetic material. This is consistent with a shoelace for this type of shoe.

Despite that, I feel the cord is exactly what LE said it was- standard nylon cord available at two locations in Boulder (McGukin's Hardware and the Army-Navy store). This type if cord is pretty common and widely available.
Aside from that, the garrote cord was matched against cord sold at those two locations and found to be the same type of cord. Matched for fiber content and weave.

Can you please direct me to this report where it says the cord was matched (by testing in a laboratory - not by sight) to the exact cord sold in those stores? I don't think ST's book is a reliable source.

 

[DeeDee249]

No, this is not correct. Laces can be purchased up to 72 inches long, but for standard high top basketball shoes of that era, laces are 52 inches long x 5/16" wide. The cord was said to be approximately 1/4" wide and made from synthetic material. This is consistent with a shoelace for this type of shoe.



Can you please direct me to this report where it says the cord was matched (by testing in a laboratory - not by sight) to the exact cord sold in those stores? I don't think ST's book is a reliable source.

That's the problem. I do.

 

[MurriFlower]

That's the problem. I do.

So is this saying that the source of this is ST's book?

 

[DeeDee249]

So is this saying that the source of this is ST's book?

It may have been. Or it may have been in the interviews I read on ACR. I recall that LE had already known about the R receipt from McGuckins and found that both the cord and tape were sold there for the prices listed on the receipt. I believe LE purchased these items and found they were the same as found on the body. I know the tape was analyzed and they were able to find out not only where it had been manufactured, but when and to which stores it was shipped, McGuckins being one of the stores. They matched it down to the thread count and glue. (on the tape).

 

[MurriFlower]

It may have been. Or it may have been in the interviews I read on ACR. I recall that LE had already known about the R receipt from McGuckins and found that both the cord and tape were sold there for the prices listed on the receipt. I believe LE purchased these items and found they were the same as found on the body. I know the tape was analyzed and they were able to find out not only where it had been manufactured, but when and to which stores it was shipped, McGuckins being one of the stores. They matched it down to the thread count and glue. (on the tape).

Yes, I remember reading that the tape was sourced by analysis, but not the cord. I expect that to fit with ST's RDI theory, it needed to be able to be sourced locally. Unless it can be proved otherwise, I'm thinking that it may very well not be cord for household use at all, but shoelaces from a type of basketball shoe popular at the time, similar to one by Converse.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, I remember reading that the tape was sourced by analysis, but not the cord. I expect that to fit with ST's RDI theory, it needed to be able to be sourced locally. Unless it can be proved otherwise, I'm thinking that it may very well not be cord for household use at all, but shoelaces from a type of basketball shoe popular at the time, similar to one by Converse.

Of course you will think what you want. But LE bought the identical cord (and tape) at McGuckins.

 

[cynic]

Of course you will think what you want. But LE bought the identical cord (and tape) at McGuckins.

I retrieved one sample package, a fifty-foot length of white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16-inch woven cord that I had bought. Van Tassell pulled the cord out, frayed an end, held it against the end of the neck ligature, and said, "Look." The soft white braid and inner weave appeared identical. "I think this is the same cord," he said.”
ST Page 261
On Dec. 2, 1996, PR purchased an item from McGuckin’s Hardware which cost $2.29.
The Stansport 32-strand, 3/16-inch woven cord sold for $2.29.

 

[MurriFlower]

I retrieved one sample package, a fifty-foot length of white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16-inch woven cord that I had bought. Van Tassell pulled the cord out, frayed an end, held it against the end of the neck ligature, and said, "Look." The soft white braid and inner weave appeared identical. "I think this is the same cord," he said.”
ST Page 261
On Dec. 2, 1996, PR purchased an item from McGuckin’s Hardware which cost $2.29.
The Stansport 32-strand, 3/16-inch woven cord sold for $2.29.

"ST Page 233

"Following a tip six months earlier, I had found what seemed to be identical cord, packaged as "nylon," in both the Boulder Army Store and McGuckin's Hardware, and collected more than fifty samples. Everyone agreed that it seemed a visual match for the neck ligature, but

ST Page 234

Trujillo insisted that the ligatures in the Ramsey case were not nylon and that we needed to find a polypropylene rope. I told him to have it tested anyway.

In the middle of November, John Van Tassell of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one of the world's foremost experts on knots and cords, reviewed the neck ligature, the length of white cord that had been twisted around the broken paintbrush handle to create a terrible killing tool. Van Tassell commented that it was "a soft nylon cord." Sergeant Wickman and I immediately caught the term.

We asked if he was certain, and the Mountie studied it some more. Sure looks like soft nylon, he said, as he examined what looked like a soft flat white shoelace. Not stiff and rigid like polypropylene."

Yep, it was 'tested' visually by Van Tassell but there is no evidence that it was done under laboratory conditions and so there is still a chance it was a shoelace, as they could easily be made from the same/similar material.

 

[cynic]

Cord checked in Ramsey case
Nylon used in strangling bought locally, sources say
By MATT SEBASTIAN, Camera Staff Writer
Monday, March 9, 1998

Investigators are almost certain the nylon cord used to strangle JonBenét Ramsey came from a Boulder surplus store, sources have told the Daily Camera.

Detectives purchased the Boulder Army Store's entire stock of Stansport white nylon utility cord on May 22, and sent the samples to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for comparison to the rope found around the 6-year-old's neck and right wrist.

Shannon Long, co-owner of the Boulder Army Store, wouldn't talk on Friday about the police visit, although he confirmed detectives purchased the cord.

"Yeah, they came in - and whatever they bought, they bought," Long said.

The surplus store is at 1545 Pearl St., just past the east end of the Downtown Mall.

The 1/4-inch-wide Stansport cord - which comes packaged in lengths of 50 and 100 feet and often is used for camping or outdoor activities - also is available at McGuckin Hardware.

Sources said Boulder investigators only purchased the nylon cord from the Boulder Army Store, not at McGuckin Hardware.

When asked if investigators had bought quantities of Stansport cord, a McGuckin manager said, "We don't have any comment."

Cmdr. Mark Beckner, who is heading the Ramsey investigation team, could not be reached for comment Friday.

JonBenét Ramsey was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her 15th Street home Dec. 26, 1996.

More than a year later, detectives have no suspects, although they have maintained the 6-year-old's parents remain "under an umbrella of suspicion."

Investigators have determined that the stick used to tighten the garrote around JonBenét's neck was a broken paintbrush found in an arts and crafts basket in the Ramseys' basement.

It is unclear if detectives have been able to ascertain whether the Stansport cord - like the paintbrush - was known to have been in the Ramsey home before the murder.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/03/09-1.html