Henry Lee's new book, anyone?

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
If you listen to the Kolar interviews you will hear him voice the opinion that someone took an alive and breathing JonBenet down to the basement, and since she is not of consenting age, this act constitutes Abduction or a Kidnapping.

Similarly in the UK children removed from a place of safety by any unauthorized person usually results in Abduction charges for that person. This includes close relatives, .i.e estranged fathers or mothers.


On the morning of the 26th the R's appeared to be operating on a wing and a prayer, with their sense of entitlement enabling them to pull off presenting JonBenet as being kidnapped by a Foreign Faction!


.

It's more than obvious that the kidnapping suggested by the note is supposed to be a kidnapping in the "classic" sense - the child removed from her home and being held for ransom, not a kidnapping in the technical sense which you have described. The kidnapping scenario is not believable with the body in the house. The legal definition of "abduction" is not the issue, as you well know.


There is a basic and fundamental disconnect between what the RN implies (e.g that she has already been abducted and is being held, off premises, to be returned when the ransom is paid) and the fact that the body is in the WC.

The RN is not meant to imply that an intruder took her from her room to the basement because finding the body in the WC confirms she's been taken to the basement. The fake RN does not make it more believable this was done by someone outside the family.

 

[Chrishope]

Your post got me thinking. What if the 911 call on the 23rd was a "test run"? Maybe someone wanted to see how BPD would react if they were refused entry, i.e. see how far they could push without BPD pushing back.

Of course, this would mean that the murder was premeditated, which I don't really think it was, but it is possible. If JB was starting to talk about being abused, and it's reported that she was, the abuser might have seen no way out other than to kill her.

It's an interesting thought, however, on the 26th the police are not refused entry, and are in fact met at the door and invited in. So how would the reaction to a 911 call be relevant?

 

[UKGuy]

Your post got me thinking. What if the 911 call on the 23rd was a "test run"? Maybe someone wanted to see how BPD would react if they were refused entry, i.e. see how far they could push without BPD pushing back.

Of course, this would mean that the murder was premeditated, which I don't really think it was, but it is possible. If JB was starting to talk about being abused, and it's reported that she was, the abuser might have seen no way out other than to kill her.

Nom de plume,
The crime-scene was too messy for it to be premeditated. One thing the party on the 23rd did was reafirm the R's belief that they were above the law.

I have factored the party on the 23rd into my basic BDI since I reckon it influenced events on the the 25th.


.

 

[UKGuy]

It's more than obvious that the kidnapping suggested by the note is supposed to be a kidnapping in the "classic" sense - the child removed from her home and being held for ransom, not a kidnapping in the technical sense which you have described. The kidnapping scenario is not believable with the body in the house. The legal definition of "abduction" is not the issue, as you well know.


There is a basic and fundamental disconnect between what the RN implies (e.g that she has already been abducted and is being held, off premises, to be returned when the ransom is paid) and the fact that the body is in the WC.

The RN is not meant to imply that an intruder took her from her room to the basement because finding the body in the WC confirms she's been taken to the basement. The fake RN does not make it more believable this was done by someone outside the family.

Chrishope,
Do you know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Similarly with the definition of kidnapping.

Your discussion always seems to revolve around the ransom note or staged events, which are irrelevant to what actually happened that night.

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Do you know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Similarly with the definition of kidnapping.

No, because one of the Rs wrote the RN (I think we agree) and the purpose can intelligently assessed (though not proven). What the RN asks the reader to believe is that JB has already been taken from the premises. This is a basic contradiction with the body being in the house. You consistently fail to account for that.

Your discussion always seems to revolve around the ransom note or staged events, which are irrelevant to what actually happened that night.

.

And yours always revolves around the idea that the WC is staged for the benefit of the police and that the Rs actually thought someone would still buy the kidnapper scenario after finding the body. e.g. they rolled the dice. (In fairness, LS claims to believe that, so you are in "good" company?)

The problem of course is that calling 911 is the equivalent of giving up the body, which in turn is the equivalent of destroying the plausibility of the kidnapping scenario.

The purpose of the RN, imo, is not to suggest some unknown intruder met the legal definition of abduction by moving her from one part of the house to another. The purpose is to make the reader believe she has actually been taken from the house.

 

[Chrishope]

Nom de plume,
The crime-scene was too messy for it to be premeditated. One thing the party on the 23rd did was reafirm the R's belief that they were above the law.

I have factored the party on the 23rd into my basic BDI since I reckon it influenced events on the the 25th.


.

I think it's correct that the scene is too messy for premeditation. The two different causes of death also seem, to me, to indicate lack of planning.

I see no basis for concluding that the Rs felt themselves above the law - especially above murder.

I'm anxious to read about how the events of the 23rd influenced those of the 25th.

 

[Nom de plume]

It's an interesting thought, however, on the 26th the police are not refused entry, and are in fact met at the door and invited in. So how would the reaction to a 911 call be relevant?

Only in the sense that someone might have wanted to see how easily the BPD could be manipulated and dictated to. Like could someone have wanted to see if they'd leave when asked, after no ransom call came by 10am? I don't necessarily believe this happened, but it sure seems like an awfully strange coincidence that 911 was called 3 days earlier, and LE was refused not only entrance, but even a face to face. WTH wouldn't she just open the door, let them see the party in progress, and that nothing was wrong? There's just something off about the way the call was handled, and I can't get past it.

 

[Nom de plume]

It's more than obvious that the kidnapping suggested by the note is supposed to be a kidnapping in the "classic" sense - the child removed from her home and being held for ransom, not a kidnapping in the technical sense which you have described. The kidnapping scenario is not believable with the body in the house. The legal definition of "abduction" is not the issue, as you well know.


There is a basic and fundamental disconnect between what the RN implies (e.g that she has already been abducted and is being held, off premises, to be returned when the ransom is paid) and the fact that the body is in the WC.

The RN is not meant to imply that an intruder took her from her room to the basement because finding the body in the WC confirms she's been taken to the basement. The fake RN does not make it more believable this was done by someone outside the family.

Thank you for bringing this up! I have intended to respond to this technical interpretation of kidnapping for some time now. While technically correct, it's utterly ridiculous to think the RN writer believed this would fly with LE. I seriously doubt 99% of people would even know that moving her from one room to the other could be legally considered kidnapping. Totally absurd.

 

[Chrishope]

Only in the sense that someone might have wanted to see how easily the BPD could be manipulated and dictated to. Like could someone have wanted to see if they'd leave when asked, after no ransom call came by 10am? I don't necessarily believe this happened, but it sure seems like an awfully strange coincidence that 911 was called 3 days earlier, and LE was refused not only entrance, but even a face to face. WTH wouldn't she just open the door, let them see the party in progress, and that nothing was wrong? There's just something off about the way the call was handled, and I can't get past it.

I see what you're getting at.

I'm troubled by the officer's response. He did respond, as he should have given that the operator called back after the hang up and got no response. The officer was on scene for 15 minutes, which troubles me simply because I can't figure out what he was doing all that time. It takes less than a minute for someone to say "everything is ok" (or something to that effect) so how to account for the other 14 minutes? If it took 14 minutes to answer the door wouldn't that be suspicious in itself? Isn't refusal to open the door suspicious? If it didn't take more than a minute or two to answer the door, then why was the officer on scene for 15 minutes after being satisfied everything was alright?

So, once on scene, it's reasonable to allow the officer to use his own discretion in deciding if there is a problem. But the facts -to the extent we know them- suggest, imo, poor judgment.

 

[UKGuy]

I think it's correct that the scene is too messy for premeditation. The two different causes of death also seem, to me, to indicate lack of planning.

I see no basis for concluding that the Rs felt themselves above the law - especially above murder.

I'm anxious to read about how the events of the 23rd influenced those of the 25th.

Chrishope,
For ease of exposition and providing a RDI framework I might leave out a lot of detail, anticipating many here will be familiar with the facts?


.

 

[redheadedgal]

About writing books.....Henry Lee's book has him alluding to the fact of an intruder doesn't it? So that isn't true as there is a book out that has an intruder point of view. I haven't personally read Lee's book.

i grabbed one of lee's books from the library the other day... he does say that

While the possibility remains that someone outside the immediate family broke into that home during the night after Christmas, this set of circumstances is a remote possibility.

he goes on to say that there's no credible evidence of forced entry and everyone with a key to the R house would have been properly eliminated... and all the above ^ being the case,

it is most essential for the investigators to analyze closely the backgrounds of Jonbenet's parents, how that tragic day unfolded, and what their relationship was like with their surviving son, Burke, who was nine the night his youngest sister was murdered.

Cracking More Cases, 2004, p. 125

 

[BBB167893]

Yes it is. Because the fibers are from people in the house that belong there along with their clothes, That their fibers are all over mean nothing.. The fibers are supposed to be all over and co mingled.

Except they WEREN'T. That's one reason why the fibers are so important.

 

[tezi]

Except they WEREN'T. That's one reason why the fibers are so important.

Exactly, you said in this post what I have been trying to say about the fibers. The fibers from the tape and the rope belong to Patsy's jacket. They are somewhere where they aren't supposed to be.

JMO

 

[redheadedgal]

one more thing about lee's 2004 book: he used pseudonyms for many of the case players close to the R's (friends, employees)... was he afraid that in 2004 he'd still be sued, even though all these names were by then known and commonly used in articles, newsreports, books, etc??

i just found it odd.

 

[tezi]

I don't think you understand TDNA if you truly believe that. But agree to disagree.

And there is plenty of evidence that PR killed JBR, but it's all circumstantial.

A good source about the TDNA is the radio show Tricia and cynic did. There is a thread around here about it. The doctor on there explains the TDNA and how it works.

It's the totality of the evidence that points to the Ramseys...Patsy in particular.

JMO

 

[Chrishope]

Exactly, you said in this post what I have been trying to say about the fibers. The fibers from the tape and the rope belong to Patsy's jacket. They are somewhere where they aren't supposed to be.

JMO

But what is the reason the fibers are where they are not supposed to be? Is it from primary transfer by PR? Or is it from secondary transfer? We do not, and cannot know.


Any insistence that they must be their from one method and not the other is pure wishful thinking to buttress one's preferred theory of the case.

 

[UKGuy]

But what is the reason the fibers are where they are not supposed to be? Is it from primary transfer by PR? Or is it from secondary transfer? We do not, and cannot know.


Any insistence that they must be their from one method and not the other is pure wishful thinking to buttress one's preferred theory of the case.

Chrishope,
The reason is because PR said she never visited the wine-cellar on the day of the 25th/26th.

Her fibers are distributed across many crime-scene items. This virtually rules out secondary transfer as an explanation.

This fiber distribution includes objects both inside and outside the wine-cellar.

In the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Sollecito's touch-dna was discovered on the victim's bra-clasp, yet it was found nowhere else on the victim or even in the enclosing room.

Video of police officers manually handling the bra and passing it around for inspection, suggesting secondary transfer as the most likely source.

In the JonBenet case fibers found in locations where secondary transfer appears unlikely corroborate the idea that PR was involved in the staging of JonBenet. No such corroboration arises with regard to Sollecito's touch-dna.

Considering secondary tranfer as an explanation for PR's fibers found at the crime-scene offers no such corroboration.

Although this does not rule out a combination of both primary and secondary transfer as an explantion.

So its not wishful thinking to assume the fibers place PR at the crime scene, since they are corroborated by other similar samples.

.

 

[BOESP]

But what is the reason the fibers are where they are not supposed to be? Is it from primary transfer by PR? Or is it from secondary transfer? We do not, and cannot know.


Any insistence that they must be their from one method and not the other is pure wishful thinking to buttress one's preferred theory of the case.

Part of the problem in understanding the importance of the fiber evidence is possibility vs probability.

There seem to have been several fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the body and at the scene, particularly the paint tray which had been in the basement for a few days and taken there by Linda Hoffman-Pugh.

Patsy stated she never wore that jacket to the basement or wore it while she painted. She wore the jacket to the Whites, not around her own home for any extended period that day (based on her discussing getting herself and JonBenet ready for the White's party and how they had a disagreement about what to wear).

To find fibers on the tape, the blanket, and elsewhere on JonBenet's body is possibly due to secondary transfer but not, imo, probable. Friction from direct contact sounds more plausible to me.

Two or three fibers, maybe, but on the underside of the tape on JonBenet's mouth -- it isn't reasonable to think that was secondary. Same thing for the fibers entwined in the rope. Fibers in a brand new pair of panties and only in the crotch? Nope, not reasonably probable in my opinion.

ETA: I can see a better probability for John's shirt being used to wipe down JonBenet than I can for it meaning he was directly in contact with JonBenet for sexual gratification.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
The reason is because PR said she never visited the wine-cellar on the day of the 25th/26th.

There is no need for her to have gone to the basement for her fibers to be there via secondary transfer.

Her fibers are distributed across many crime-scene items. This virtually rules out secondary transfer as an explanation.

The killer touched the body, and each of the objects; tape, blanket, garrotte, tote, etc.

There is nothing about the "distribution" of the fibers that rules out indirect transfer.

This fiber distribution includes objects both inside and outside the wine-cellar.

As would be expected, given the body and the killer and the objects the killer touched had been, at one time or another, on both sides of the door.

In the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Sollecito's touch-dna was discovered on the victim's bra-clasp, yet it was found nowhere else on the victim or even in the enclosing room.

Video of police officers manually handling the bra and passing it around for inspection, suggesting secondary transfer as the most likely source.

In the JonBenet case fibers found in locations where secondary transfer appears unlikely corroborate the idea that PR was involved in the staging of JonBenet. No such corroboration arises with regard to Sollecito's touch-dna.

Stringing a daisy chain of inconclusive evidence does not provide corroboration.

There is no reason to say secondary transfer appears unlikely, as the fibers could well have been on the clothing and hair of the victim and transferred by the killer to each object the killer touched.

Considering secondary tranfer as an explanation for PR's fibers found at the crime-scene offers no such corroboration.

Although this does not rule out a combination of both primary and secondary transfer as an explantion.

So its not wishful thinking to assume the fibers place PR at the crime scene, since they are corroborated by other similar samples.

.

Again, a string of inconclusive evidence does not amount to corroboration. Two negatives make a positive. Two inconclusives still add up to an inconclusive.

There is no way to tell whether the fibers are there from primary transfer, or secondary transfer, or a combination. The evidence in inconclusive. Multiple examples of inconclusive evidence remain inconclusive.

 

[Chrishope]

Part of the problem in understanding the importance of the fiber evidence is possibility vs probability.

There seem to have been several fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the body and at the scene, particularly the paint tray which had been in the basement for a few days and taken there by Linda Hoffman-Pugh.

Patsy stated she never wore that jacket to the basement or wore it while she painted. She wore the jacket to the Whites, not around her own home for any extended period that day (based on her discussing getting herself and JonBenet ready for the White's party and how they had a disagreement about what to wear).

The jacket wouldn't need to have been worn in the basement for those fibers to end up in the basement. It's enough that they could have been transferred to JBR, then from the killer to the various objects.

Consider that it's possible that PR is the killer, molester, paintbrush jabber, wiper, redresser, etc. The red fibers, from the jacket, could still be in those locations from secondary (indirect transfer) That is, the fibers could have been on JBR and transferred by the killer (PR in this example) to the rope, blanket, tape, etc.

Recognizing that the fiber evidence is inconclusive does not weaken a PDI theory, or any other theory. It's just that the fiber evidence doesn't particularly support one theory over another.

To find fibers on the tape, the blanket, and elsewhere on JonBenet's body is possibly due to secondary transfer but not, imo, probable. Friction from direct contact sounds more plausible to me.

Respectfully, you are entitled to your own feelings as to what is plausible, but there is nothing in the forensics of fiber transfer which would make secondary transfer unlikely.

Two or three fibers, maybe, but on the underside of the tape on JonBenet's mouth -- it isn't reasonable to think that was secondary.

IIRC there were four red fibers on the tape. You've always struck me as sensible so I know you aren't suggesting that the fourth fiber is the deal breaker.

The tape was pulled off the mouth and allowed to drop to the floor, so we don't know if the fibers were picked up from the floor or not.

Same thing for the fibers entwined in the rope.

The fibers "ENTWINED" (Let's go for maximum effect) in the rope (let's be specific, in the knots) could have been transferred from the body to the rope by the killer's hands (and it could still be PR) The knots are where the fibers would most likely be found because A) the hands/fingers are busiest at the knots, and B) fibers along the rest of the rope will tend to fall off, rather than be secured by the knots.

Fibers in a brand new pair of panties and only in the crotch? Nope, not reasonably probable in my opinion.

Those, iirc, would be JR's black shirt fibers, which is another issue. Though, imo, also inconclusive. We can discuss that particular evidence another time, if you care to.

ETA: I can see a better probability for John's shirt being used to wipe down JonBenet than I can for it meaning he was directly in contact with JonBenet for sexual gratification.

I think that makes a good deal of sense.

I can also see it meaning he redressed her. Though I think overall, even that fiber evidence is inconclusive.


Lastly, consider this. PR knows well in advance what questions will be asked at the police interviews. She knows fiber evidence will be an issue. If she wanted a convenient explanation for her red jacket fibers being in the basement why wouldn't she simply say she'd been down there, with the jacket on? It would be virtually impossible to fact check this, so she'd have nothing to loose, and something to gain.

Her statement that she wasn't down there the 25th must either be true, or be a lie that doesn't get her any mileage. If she is going to lie, why not an effective lie?