Henry Lee's new book, anyone?

[BOESP]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?

Chris, you did read the part about "possibility vs probability" didn't you? And insinuating that my opinion is based on "feelings" is, well, getting a bit desperate or condescending?

Your idea is possible and I've never said it wasn't. I see my view of the fiber evidence as probable. We can agree to disagree.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?

Because once you live the "priveleged lifestyle" you truly believe to your core that you have it all figured out and you've taken the necessary steps to beat the LE at their own game. That's why you clean the body, redress it, and make sure you create enough distractions and hysterics to cause the chaos. Let's face it, PR was no amateur at chaos and distractions. And she had lived the life of what looks, money and charm can get you. It influences people and she had known that for a very long time.
The only thing she couldn't "buy" or "pesuade" others is this: she wasn't particularly bright. Not genius bright....nope, not by a long-shot.

moo

 

[Chrishope]

Chris, you did read the part about "possibility vs probability" didn't you?

Yes, I did. IMO one method of transfer is not more or less probable than another.

And insinuating that my opinion is based on "feelings" is, well, getting a bit desperate or condescending?

I'm sorry you took it that way because I wasn't trying to be condescending. You yourself stated that secondary transfer was not probable in your opinion and that primary transfer seemed more plausible. Since I could find no scientific basis for stating that one transfer method is more likely than another, I had to assume you were speaking of your "feelings" or if you prefer your impressions, or instincts. If your conclusion is based on something from forensic science, I wish you'd share it.

As you yourself state in a prior post there are fibers on the body and on several objects in the basement, associated with the murder. This makes it easy to see how the transfer could have been indirect - fibers already on the body being transferred to the objects used in the crime.

Your idea is possible and I've never said it wasn't. I see my view of the fiber evidence as probable. We can agree to disagree.

And your idea is also possible. I have no quarrel with the idea that PR might have been down the basement garrotting her daughter. The fiber evidence certainly allows for that. My only quarrel is with the notion that there is something more probable -based on forensic science- about one transfer method or the other.

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

 

[BOESP]

Yes, I did. IMO one method of transfer is not more or less probable than another.




I'm sorry you took it that way because I wasn't trying to be condescending. You yourself stated that secondary transfer was not probable in your opinion and that primary transfer seemed more plausible. Since I could find no scientific basis for stating that one transfer method is more likely than another, I had to assume you were speaking of your "feelings" or if you prefer your impressions, or instincts. If your conclusion is based on something from forensic science, I wish you'd share it.

As you yourself state in a prior post there are fibers on the body and on several objects in the basement, associated with the murder. This makes it easy to see how the transfer could have been indirect - fibers already on the body being transferred to the objects used in the crime.



And your idea is also possible. I have no quarrel with the idea that PR might have been down the basement garrotting her daughter. The fiber evidence certainly allows for that. My only quarrel is with the notion that there is something more probable -based on forenitsic science- about one transfer method or the other.

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Isolating and looking only at fiber evidence will result in information that suggests possibilities. Correlating the possibilities with other information and then analyzing each whole ball of wax suggests probabilities.

 

[redheadedgal]

Isolating and looking only at fiber evidence will result in information that suggests possibilities. Correlating the possibilities with other information and then analyzing each whole ball of wax suggests probabilities.

It would take a year before the black and red Essentials brand
jacket Patsy was photographed wearing was finally delivered to
them. It was frustrating. The clothing articles seemed to trickle
into their office a piece or two at a time. In one instance, a sweater
– that Patsy was said to be wearing under the jacket – was
delivered that looked like it had just come off the shelf of a retail
clothing store. The fold marks were crisp and clearly present,
suggesting it had never been worn.

Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight
different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to
cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic,
and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by
laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically
consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy
Ramsey’s Essentials jacket.

Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace
fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and
vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor.

Some intruder theorists thought that the transfer of Patsy’s
jacket fibers to the duct tape may have taken place after John had
removed it from JonBenét’s face, and placed it on the white
blanket in the cellar. They believed it possible that prior contact
taking place between the blanket and jacket could account for the
transfer of these fibers to the tape.

Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same
brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the
blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in
different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal
transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but
Trujillo told me lab technicians didn’t think that this type of
transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been
found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct
contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for
the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence.

FF:WRKJBR, Kolar, page 228

 

[BOESP]

redheadedgal said:

transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been
found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct
contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for
the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence.

FF:WRKJBR, Kolar, page 228

Yes, the above is the "friction" I mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[UKGuy]

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



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.



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.



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.



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,
Not certain which school of reasoning you attended. Over here in the UK separate unconnected items of evidence can act as corroboration.

Its is trite to state the evidence is inconclusive, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. You appear to be a naysayer, I say black you say white. Again your focus is on the staged evidence which does not address what actually happened on 12/25/1996.

Your grasp of probability appears minimal, other posters have attempted to inform you on this topic, yet you seem to ignore them.

When contructing a theory of past events, it is by necessity that of probability or chance, since we were not present. i.e. biblical miracles have a probability of occurrence, but you cannot calculate it, since it was a divine or supernatural event.

So I reckon most RDI theorists would calculate the probability that the fibers distributed around the basement were directly deposited by Patsy as pretty high and that they arrived indirectly a lower probabilty, even lower is a combination of both direct and indirect transfer.


Your flowery rhetoric regarding inconclusives is just that and does not advance you case one iota.


Patently your adherence to the secondary transfer possibility indicates that you have an agenda.

One whereby your own reasoning you appear to allocate equal probability to both means of fiber transfer.

So why all the quibling and posting about events which have equal standing, whats the percentage?


You seem to protest your case a little to much!

 

[UKGuy]

FF:WRKJBR, Kolar, page 228

redheadedgal,
Patently those that hold to secondary transfer might generate an RDI where one of the Ramsey's was a crossdresser, thus achieving secondary transfer immediately?


In real life multiple samples of of touch-dna or fibers point to direct transfer, particularly when they are separated by a snibbed door.


.

 

[renah]

Part of my still-developing theory: JB was encouraged to go downstairs to the basement and wait for Santa's "special" visit. SHE wore her mother's jacket down there, picking it up on the way, because it was cold and dank down there. And also possibly as a sort of prop for playing, but thats beside the point Im trying to make here, which is:

Any fibers except for those found inside of her clothing means zip-- For all of the reasons previously stated & debated, plus mine.

At least that's my opinion on the subject So much else is sooo much debated; I love debate but really hate when it turns to argument.. So I am very pleased to take this issue out of the arena!

 

[DeeDee249]

Part of my still-developing theory: JB was encouraged to go downstairs to the basement and wait for Santa's "special" visit. SHE wore her mother's jacket down there, picking it up on the way, because it was cold and dank down there. And also possibly as a sort of prop for playing, but thats beside the point Im trying to make here, which is:

Any fibers except for those found inside of her clothing means zip-- For all of the reasons previously stated & debated, plus mine.

At least that's my opinion on the subject So much else is sooo much debated; I love debate but really hate when it turns to argument.. So I am very pleased to take this issue out of the arena!

I'd say Patsy's fibers on the INSIDE of the duct tape and entwined in the cord knot mean much more than zip. That duct tape was put on an unconscious (or dead) JB, and I don't think anyone here thinks JB tied the cord on herself. These TWO locations, above all- place Patsy there- in her jacket- at the time of death, staging or both.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Not certain which school of reasoning you attended. Over here in the UK separate unconnected items of evidence can act as corroboration.

Corroborate means to confirm or lend support to a theory.

You can't support or confirm a theory of primary transfer with inconclusive evidence.

Its is trite to state the evidence is inconclusive, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Trite means overused. If I say the evidence is inconclusive I've overused the term only because so many people wrongly keep insisting it's conclusive, or corroborating.

We have lots of discussions here about things that are just plain wrong.

You appear to be a naysayer, I say black you say white. Again your focus is on the staged evidence which does not address what actually happened on 12/25/1996.

It probably seems that way to you because I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not saying the opposite of what you say just to disagree, I'm saying it because you are wrong.

Your grasp of probability appears minimal, other posters have attempted to inform you on this topic, yet you seem to ignore them.

There is no way to determine the probability based on inconclusive evidence.

When contructing a theory of past events, it is by necessity that of probability or chance, since we were not present. i.e. biblical miracles have a probability of occurrence, but you cannot calculate it, since it was a divine or supernatural event.

So I reckon most RDI theorists would calculate the probability that the fibers distributed around the basement were directly deposited by Patsy as pretty high and that they arrived indirectly a lower probabilty, even lower is a combination of both direct and indirect transfer.

It's clear you "reckon" that, but it's also clear that there is no basis for such a reckoning.

Your flowery rhetoric regarding inconclusives is just that and does not advance you case one iota.

For the thousandth time I quote the Georgia Bureau of investigation -

"Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless. "

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/trace-evidence

The red and black fibers in our case are meaningless (or inconclusive) because PR/JR/JBR all shared the same home.

Patently your adherence to the secondary transfer possibility indicates that you have an agenda.

Patently you can't read and understand English. I do not adhere to secondary transfer. The evidence is inconclusive. It is no more (or less) likely to be secondary than primary.

One whereby your own reasoning you appear to allocate equal probability to both means of fiber transfer.

In the sense that there is no way to allocate probability, given that the fiber evidence is meaningless.

So why all the quibling and posting about events which have equal standing, whats the percentage?

Because they only have equal standing in the sense that likelihood can't be determined.

You seem to protest your case a little to much!

I have to, because you keep making the same mistake over and over.

 

[BOESP]

Actually, the full quote from the GBI site is: "NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless."

It also says, " Ropes and cordage from a crime scene can be compared with known samples collected from a suspect."

I agree there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy the mode of fiber transfer in JonBenet's case and the fiber evidence may not be admissible in court, but common sense tells me the number of fibers and location of fibers look suspicious. It is up to the courts to decide if the evidence is admissible.

 

[questfortrue]

Actually, the full quote from the GBI site is: "NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless."

It also says, " Ropes and cordage from a crime scene can be compared with known samples collected from a suspect."

I agree there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy the mode of fiber transfer in JonBenet's case and the fiber evidence may not be admissible in court, but common sense tells me the number of fibers and location of fibers look suspicious. It is up to the courts to decide if the evidence is admissible.

If it had gone to trial, I’m sure the defense attorneys would have asked to have had the fiber evidence thrown out (per the guidance of the Georgia CBI). And maybe/probably/ who knows whether a judge would have asked a jury to disregard it. It is, however, not an absolute that it would have been thrown out as irrelevant. There have been cases in which it has been allowed, based on where the fiber evidence is found (underneath a dead body, e.g.).

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, the full quote from the GBI site is: "NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless."

It also says, " Ropes and cordage from a crime scene can be compared with known samples collected from a suspect."

I agree there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy the mode of fiber transfer in JonBenet's case and the fiber evidence may not be admissible in court, but common sense tells me the number of fibers and location of fibers look suspicious. It is up to the courts to decide if the evidence is admissible.

BOESP,
That applies to most RDI theories, since they are reconstructions of past events.

If Patsy's fibers were found in single figures then the case for secondary transfer would be strong.

That they are found in multiples entwined into the garrote, and on the sticky side of the duct-tape, and on the paint tote.

Unless someone is deliberately faking Patsy's physical presence, say by wearing her jacket, then common sense mandates those fibers link Patsy to the crime-scene.

IMO Patsy appears to be the author of the wine-cellar crime-scene?


.