Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[rpgman]

I don't believe Mr. Ramsey's sweater fibers were actually found in JonBenét's underwear, but there were fibers found in the in her pubic region that have not been sourced.

If the foreign, male DNA profile belongs to someone who had helped JonBenét in the bathroom, then there is no acceptable reason for the evidentiary DNA to remain unsourced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless they didn't test everyone she came in contact with that day/night. I have never read anything that says they did.

I remember a few months ago I read somewhere where they gave a number of how many were tested but I don't recall the exact number.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't believe Mr. Ramsey's sweater fibers were actually found in JonBenét's underwear, but there were fibers found in the in her pubic region that have not been sourced.

If the foreign, male DNA profile belongs to someone who had helped JonBenét in the bathroom, then there is no acceptable reason for the evidentiary DNA to remain unsourced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,
So do you reckon the investigators were lying when they told the R's that JR's Israeli manufactured shirt fibers were found in JonBenet's genital area?

JR's shirt was a foreign import, an expensive item, not some populist, fashonista mass produced garment. Also BPD would have to back up their claims in court with expert opinion.

Maybe PR wiped JonBenet down with the shirt who knows, what is the evidence that allows you to suggest that those fibers found on JonBenet are not linked in any manner to JR?

.

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
So do you reckon the investigators were lying when they told the R's that JR's Israeli manufactured shirt fibers were found in JonBenet's genital area?

Yes.

JR's shirt was a foreign import, an expensive item, not some populist, fashonista mass produced garment. Also BPD would have to back up their claims in court with expert opinion.

Maybe PR wiped JonBenet down with the shirt who knows, what is the evidence that allows you to suggest that those fibers found on JonBenet are not linked in any manner to JR?

.

I have been unable to find a reliable source validating the claim that John Ramsey's sweater fibers were found in JonBenét's panties/pubic region. A most recent source to discredit Levin's purported 'evidence' is Kolar in FF, p. 229. The fibers weren't black, they weren't wool, and they have not been sourced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

Yes.

I have been unable to find a reliable source validating the claim that John Ramsey's sweater fibers were found in JonBenét's panties/pubic region. A most recent source to discredit Levin's purported 'evidence' is Kolar in FF, p. 229. The fibers weren't black, they weren't wool, and they have not been sourced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heyya Mama2JML

fmi

An alternate light source (ALS) was used to scan JonBenét’s body in search of other trace evidence and fluids. The area around her upper thighs illuminated traces of fluid and indications that she may have been wiped clean with some type of cloth. Investigators thought perhaps that the fluid source reacting to the ALS was semen, but swabbing’s of the area would later be determined to be a smear of blood.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 58

JK doesn't specify color or potential source for the 'cloth' on p 58?
What is the quote from p 229? Not having the book I'm limited to the search function at amazon. 5 mentions of fibers.

Thought pages 228 and 229
focused on the "eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape" and PR's 'black and red Essentials jacket'?

******************************************

http://www.amazon.ca/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796

ST references the fibers as dark colored.

p 46 It appeared that the vaginal area
had been wiped and small dark fibers were
collected from her pubic region

p 166 Meyer said he found a lot of redness,
some small flecks of blood, and dark-colored
fibers in the vaginal area, but no old scarring.

p 319 The dark fibers found in her pubic region
could have come from the violent wiping of a wet child.

p 343 Trujillo presented the
news that four red acrylic
fibers on the duct tape covering
JonBenet's mouth were consistent
with Patsy's blazer.

***********************************************

PMPT
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Murder-Town-Uncensored-JonBenet/dp/0061096962

p 42 Meyer noticed - and Detective Arndt also observed -
a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside
of JonBenet's nightshirt.

p 156 Arndt told Byfield that fibers had been found on JonBenet's
shirt and that similar material had been discovered in her pubic area.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes.

I have been unable to find a reliable source validating the claim that John Ramsey's sweater fibers were found in JonBenét's panties/pubic region. A most recent source to discredit Levin's purported 'evidence' is Kolar in FF, p. 229. The fibers weren't black, they weren't wool, and they have not been sourced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,
Other than Levin's assertion that they match I've seen nothing to contest the claim.

1996-12-29: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, excerpt

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 27, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury constant with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Nice quote, I'm assuming this was not staged.

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, excerpt

The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenét’s labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped.

1996-12-29: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, excerpt

Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair on the outside of the shirt Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Atlanta 2000, John Ramsey Interview, excerpt

8 THE WITNESS: If the question is

9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your

10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not

11 possible. I don't believe it. That is

12 ridiculous.

Atlanta 2000, Patsy Ramsey Interview, excerpt

10 In addition to those questions,

11 there are some others that I would like you

12 to think about whether or not we can have

13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I

14 understand you are advising her not to today,

15 and those are there are black fibers that,

16 according to our testing that was conducted,

17 that match one of the two shirts that was

18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.

19 Those are located in the

20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in

21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two

22 other areas that we have intended to ask

23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in

24 explaining their presence in those locations.

.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~

Other than Levin's assertion that they match I've seen nothing to contest the claim.

Some dispute that Levin’s information (referencing a forensic report) on the fibers was true and allude that Levin may have been baiting JR. However, per the Colorado Bar Ethics Code, lawyers in Colorado are not permitted to deceive a suspect with fraudulent information. It’s spelled out quite clearly in their Ethics requirements. So assume it depends on whether one believes Levin was following or violating the lawyers’ Ethics Code.

Considering the discussion of JR fibers in the panties crotch, I’m recalling a comment from Wecht that JR would have been arrested if JB had been taken to a hospital. I can imagine how that thought may have played out in their minds, especially JR. If the Rs had chosen to call for help, there could have been fallout/suspicion that JR had been molesting his daughter. And whether true or untrue, that would have been a huge motivation not to call. While we can see the human side of their reasons and choices (panic, fear, saving their family, shame of abuse, etc.), in no way were the proceedings which were undertaken that night, “right” actions. And their wrong choices, including implicating others, continued.

Thankfully, I doubt anyone here has ever had to deal with the kind of scenario that was presented to the Rs that night. And DeeDee is absolutely correct no one can really know for sure how they’d respond in such a situation. But we do know in looking at this scenario from outside, what should have ensued for the injured child - a call for help. Granted, striving to do the right thing may be unbearably difficult in some circumstances, but courage to try should still be held as an ideal. Were it not for that higher aim, we wouldn’t have the books written by Kolar, ST and SD.

I comment on this, not from the moral judgment viewpoint, but more to state what one member of the GJ stated they saw and pondered in considering charges. “They could have helped her and they didn’t.” MHO

 

[Mama2JML]

Levin was 'investigating', not prosecuting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rudy67]

Does anyone know or have an opinion as to why Burke's third grade teacher was called as a witness in front of the Grand Jury? I'm curious and I can't find information as to why or what she may have testified to.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

 

[Mama2JML]

Levin had a discretionary privilege to deceive persons under suspicion, as an acting member of the Ramsey investigatory team:

"Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors' use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and direct investigations involving deceit. Law enforcement officers regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative technique. Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so courts have determined that public policy favors deception over unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing investigations.

When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question. The two states that recently took on this issue have decided that prosecutors may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case. In 2001, Oregon amended its disciplinary rules to allow criminal attorneys to misrepresent their identity or purpose in investigating believed unlawful activity. In 2002, a Utah ethics opinion stated that 'as long as a prosecutor's conduct employing dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful government operation, the prosecutor does not violate the ethics rule(s). The Committee further stated that there should be no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it."​

​

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...0W6wdg#search="prosecutorial ethics colorado"

 

[Global Justice Ops]

Does anyone know or have an opinion as to why Burke's third grade teacher was called as a witness in front of the Grand Jury? I'm curious and I can't find information as to why or what she may have testified to.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

My opinion would be that she was called to probably to provide information about Burke Ramsey’s behavioral patterns. They would want to know what she observed about him on a daily basis. There was little to no forensic evidence implicating the Ramsey family as being guilty, to substitute for that you have to build a circumstantial case.

 

[UKGuy]

~RSBM~

Some dispute that Levin’s information (referencing a forensic report) on the fibers was true and allude that Levin may have been baiting JR. However, per the Colorado Bar Ethics Code, lawyers in Colorado are not permitted to deceive a suspect with fraudulent information. It’s spelled out quite clearly in their Ethics requirements. So assume it depends on whether one believes Levin was following or violating the lawyers’ Ethics Code.

Considering the discussion of JR fibers in the panties crotch, I’m recalling a comment from Wecht that JR would have been arrested if JB had been taken to a hospital. I can imagine how that thought may have played out in their minds, especially JR. If the Rs had chosen to call for help, there could have been fallout/suspicion that JR had been molesting his daughter. And whether true or untrue, that would have been a huge motivation not to call. While we can see the human side of their reasons and choices (panic, fear, saving their family, shame of abuse, etc.), in no way were the proceedings which were undertaken that night, “right” actions. And their wrong choices, including implicating others, continued.

Thankfully, I doubt anyone here has ever had to deal with the kind of scenario that was presented to the Rs that night. And DeeDee is absolutely correct no one can really know for sure how they’d respond in such a situation. But we do know in looking at this scenario from outside, what should have ensued for the injured child - a call for help. Granted, striving to do the right thing may be unbearably difficult in some circumstances, but courage to try should still be held as an ideal. Were it not for that higher aim, we wouldn’t have the books written by Kolar, ST and SD.

I comment on this, not from the moral judgment viewpoint, but more to state what one member of the GJ stated they saw and pondered in considering charges. “They could have helped her and they didn’t.” MHO

questfortrue,
Yes deception is a distinct possibility. I note this since the question about JR's fibers was put to Patsy, unless she was staging JR into the crime-scene by using JR's shirt, then how can she answer that one? It might have been a gambit to encourage Patsy to admit JR did it etc?

Speculating on this I reckon it could be PDI since just why would Patsy stage for JR, maybe for BR, but JR, would it not be more likely that JR would do the staging, yet PR's forensic evidence is all over the wine-cellar crime-scene including the paint-tote?

One scenario I could entertain is BR whacking JonBenet on the head in the breakfast-bar, in a fit of rage, then Patsy stages JonBenet's death down in the basement including digital penetration, hence the splinter. JR later revises this to the kidnapping scenario?

.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Levin had a discretionary privilege to deceive persons under suspicion, as an acting member of the Ramsey investigatory team:

"Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors' use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and direct investigations involving deceit. Law enforcement officers regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative technique. Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so courts have determined that public policy favors deception over unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing investigations.

When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question. The two states that recently took on this issue have decided that prosecutors may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case. In 2001, Oregon amended its disciplinary rules to allow criminal attorneys to misrepresent their identity or purpose in investigating believed unlawful activity. In 2002, a Utah ethics opinion stated that 'as long as a prosecutor's conduct employing dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful government operation, the prosecutor does not violate the ethics rule(s). The Committee further stated that there should be no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it."​

​

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...0W6wdg#search="prosecutorial ethics colorado"

Thanks Mama. I've always known that police officers can lie or use deceit in criminal investigations. I never gave any thought that prosecuting attorneys could or would do the same.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~ It might have been a gambit to encourage Patsy to admit JR did it etc?

I'd bet they were interested to see how she responded, just as they asked her about the window that JR said he broke.

I break rather on the side of DeeDee when it comes to the fiber evidence. It doesn’t necessarily indicate who struck (or flung) JB. It does seem to indicate the presence of parents involved in obstruction of justice. The GJ TB seems to point to both being responsible for allowing a situation which led to JB’s death. And they both were responsible for conspiring to conceal who mortally injured her. While I’ve known about attorneys who break their ethics codes and state statutes, it doesn’t lead to a certain conclusion that if an attorney can deceive in an investigation, that Levin did. (The self-portrayal JR gives in trying to avoid any land mines, while rambling through the field of inquiry about laundry habits, convinced me.) So people can have their beliefs on it one way or another. No one can dispute a belief about a report none of us have seen.

Actually, I find it a valid question why this fiber info is not in Kolar’s book. After all, the fiber evidence implicating PR was mentioned. Was it because a forensic report does not exist, or did Kolar’s attorney feel it contributed to innuendo which might get him sued? IDK.

Yet there was something else, which I call a parent's first instinct. One of the questions ST asked when building his theory was: Where is JR in these scenes of family chaos? Well, if BR is responsible for the head strike, I believe a parent would immediately engage the other parent to help. It would be a horror. Even in families of dysfunction, and the R family does wave huge flags in their dynamics, there can be caring. And the convoluted staging of the event tells me it took two of them to concoct it and two to execute it. The FBI thought two hands in the staging. So do I (i.e., two adults), black shirt fibers or no. JMHO

 

[Anti-K]

I'd bet they were interested to see how she responded, just as they asked her about the window that JR said he broke.

I break rather on the side of DeeDee when it comes to the fiber evidence. It doesn’t necessarily indicate who struck (or flung) JB. It does seem to indicate the presence of parents involved in obstruction of justice. The GJ TB seems to point to both being responsible for allowing a situation which led to JB’s death. And they both were responsible for conspiring to conceal who mortally injured her. While I’ve known about attorneys who break their ethics codes and state statutes, it doesn’t lead to a certain conclusion that if an attorney can deceive in an investigation, that Levin did. (The self-portrayal JR gives in trying to avoid any land mines, while rambling through the field of inquiry about laundry habits, convinced me.) So people can have their beliefs on it one way or another. No one can dispute a belief about a report none of us have seen.

Actually, I find it a valid question why this fiber info is not in Kolar’s book. After all, the fiber evidence implicating PR was mentioned. Was it because a forensic report does not exist, or did Kolar’s attorney feel it contributed to innuendo which might get him sued? IDK.

Yet there was something else, which I call a parent's first instinct. One of the questions ST asked when building his theory was: Where is JR in these scenes of family chaos? Well, if BR is responsible for the head strike, I believe a parent would immediately engage the other parent to help. It would be a horror. Even in families of dysfunction, and the R family does wave huge flags in their dynamics, there can be caring. And the convoluted staging of the event tells me it took two of them to concoct it and two to execute it. The FBI thought two hands in the staging. So do I (i.e., two adults), black shirt fibers or no. JMHO

You’re right, just because Levin could have legally lied, it doesn’t mean that he did. However, the fact that his claim regarding Mr Ramsey’s shirt fibers is not substantiated or corroborated anywhere, or by anyone should lead us to treat the claim with some skepticism and doubt.
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

You’re right, just because Levin could have legally lied, it doesn’t mean that he did. However, the fact that his claim regarding Mr Ramsey’s shirt fibers is not substantiated or corroborated anywhere, or by anyone should lead us to treat the claim with some skepticism and doubt.
...

AK

AK, since you quoted me, here’s my sense of this. Please do not assume that I should agree with your inductive reasoning regarding doubts about a forensic report. I give others leeway to believe as they are inclined or whether they "should" have skepticism and doubts. But as for me, let me state clearly: I believe such a forensic report exists, and my conclusions are also based on inductive reasoning.

 

[UKGuy]

I'd bet they were interested to see how she responded, just as they asked her about the window that JR said he broke.

I break rather on the side of DeeDee when it comes to the fiber evidence. It doesn’t necessarily indicate who struck (or flung) JB. It does seem to indicate the presence of parents involved in obstruction of justice. The GJ TB seems to point to both being responsible for allowing a situation which led to JB’s death. And they both were responsible for conspiring to conceal who mortally injured her. While I’ve known about attorneys who break their ethics codes and state statutes, it doesn’t lead to a certain conclusion that if an attorney can deceive in an investigation, that Levin did. (The self-portrayal JR gives in trying to avoid any land mines, while rambling through the field of inquiry about laundry habits, convinced me.) So people can have their beliefs on it one way or another. No one can dispute a belief about a report none of us have seen.

Actually, I find it a valid question why this fiber info is not in Kolar’s book. After all, the fiber evidence implicating PR was mentioned. Was it because a forensic report does not exist, or did Kolar’s attorney feel it contributed to innuendo which might get him sued? IDK.

Yet there was something else, which I call a parent's first instinct. One of the questions ST asked when building his theory was: Where is JR in these scenes of family chaos? Well, if BR is responsible for the head strike, I believe a parent would immediately engage the other parent to help. It would be a horror. Even in families of dysfunction, and the R family does wave huge flags in their dynamics, there can be caring. And the convoluted staging of the event tells me it took two of them to concoct it and two to execute it. The FBI thought two hands in the staging. So do I (i.e., two adults), black shirt fibers or no. JMHO

questfortrue,
If a forensic report does not exist then Levin was being dishonest. Its likely that a report does exist, just that its findings are inconclusive.

The fibers at the crime-scene demonstrate that both parents, including, BR, were involved is some form of staging. I reckon the evidence suggests minimally two staging events, possibly three, i.e. one by Patsy and one by JR and possibly one by BR if its BDI?

Speculating: BR stages whatever he thinks is a credible crime-scene in her bedroom, remember BR knows she was whacked on the head, and that his touch-dna was found on the pink nightgown left in the wine-cellar, PR becomes involved, she moves JonBenet down to the basement redresses and stages JonBenet as the victim of a sexual assault, possibly including the digital penetration along with applying the ligature. Enter stage left, JR, he decides a Kidnapping scenario is a better bet, so tells PR to write a RN while he redresses JonBenet in size-12's and white longjohns. This is why JR is dissembling about the broken window, chair, suitcase etc, these were elements of PR's staging he had to dismantle, and help explain away.

For sure the GJ could never prove either parent killed JonBenet but the forensic evidence demonstrated they were involved in the staging, so they could be charged with that.

Is the case BDI so only the parents were indicted or did Alex Hunter pull a master stroke when he failed to sign of the GJ papers?

.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, since you quoted me, here’s my sense of this. Please do not assume that I should agree with your inductive reasoning regarding doubts about a forensic report. I give others leeway to believe as they are inclined or whether they "should" have skepticism and doubts. But as for me, let me state clearly: I believe such a forensic report exists, and my conclusions are also based on inductive reasoning.

I’d like to see that reasoning (your argument for accepting Levin’s claim). Please.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I don't believe Mr. Ramsey's sweater fibers were actually found in JonBenét's underwear

HE believed it! If what he nearly dropped in HIS underwear is any indication.

 

[Mama2JML]

HE believed it! If what he nearly dropped in HIS underwear is any indication.

Actually, he specifically said, "I don't believe it." Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

Actually, he specifically said, "I don't believe it." Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, I know what his MOUTH said. I was referring to his body language. It was a Kodak moment.