IDI: Whats your problem?

[DeeDee249]

the cops needed to/were obligated to/should have/had to inspect every square inch of the house, inside and outside, for any possible clues. While waiting for the phone call, they were negligent by not doing everything humanly possible to get a jump on the perp. Did they tap the phone?

Inviting friends over was also a good move for emotional support. Imagine the fear ripping their souls to shreds. Imagine you went downstairs one morning and found that note with your name and your child's name.

Yes, they should have. But they didn't. Because of the holiday, they were short-staffed, and refused help from other LE (Denver police offered to help and Eller, feeling insulted, refused). It is unfathomable that Officer French, the first on the scene, didn't at least TRY to see why the wineceller door wouldn't open. All he had to do was look UP. It is a shame more LE weren't sent to aid Det. Arndt when she asked, several times, for help.
Phone taps are standard for kidnapping cases, which this was thought by LE to be at first. But not much has been said as to whether they did this. Because if this, I'd bet they may not have. I believe a warrant is needed for that, and Hunter pretty much stymied any warrant police asked for. He refused warrants for their phone records.
Inviting friends over TO THE CRIME SCENE was a big mistake and one police should never have allowed. Officer French should have thrown them out or prevented them from entering. I am not minimizing the support friends can offer, but they did not belong in that house that morning. It should have been sealed off to anyone not LE as soon as police arrived. If this had been done, for example, FW wouldn't have been there to touch the suitcase or the tape. In the kitchen, where a flashlight was on a counter and the Rs claimed "wasn't theirs, but they had one just like it", and which may have been the murder weapon, the Rs friends were wiping the counters down and cleaning things off. Who knows- maybe one of THEM wiped off the flashlight. And batteries.
In light of the alleged RN's instructions NOT to talk to even a stray dog, the Rs decision to have several cars and lots of people arriving at a house that the note said would be "monitored" is suspicious to me.

 

[MurriFlower]

Inviting friends over TO THE CRIME SCENE was a big mistake and one police should never have allowed. Officer French should have thrown them out or prevented them from entering. I am not minimizing the support friends can offer, but they did not belong in that house that morning.

Perhaps I'm wrong here DD, but I think it was the police who organised the two Victim Support Workers to come over as well.

 

[DeeDee249]

Perhaps I'm wrong here DD, but I think it was the police who organised the two Victim Support Workers to come over as well.

Not as far as I know. Patsy's pastor (who was also called over) was said to have brought them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, they should have. But they didn't. Because of the holiday, they were short-staffed, and refused help from other LE (Denver police offered to help and Eller, feeling insulted, refused). It is unfathomable that Officer French, the first on the scene, didn't at least TRY to see why the wineceller door wouldn't open. All he had to do was look UP. It is a shame more LE weren't sent to aid Det. Arndt when she asked, several times, for help.
Phone taps are standard for kidnapping cases, which this was thought by LE to be at first. But not much has been said as to whether they did this. Because if this, I'd bet they may not have. I believe a warrant is needed for that, and Hunter pretty much stymied any warrant police asked for. He refused warrants for their phone records.
Inviting friends over TO THE CRIME SCENE was a big mistake and one police should never have allowed. Officer French should have thrown them out or prevented them from entering. I am not minimizing the support friends can offer, but they did not belong in that house that morning. It should have been sealed off to anyone not LE as soon as police arrived. If this had been done, for example, FW wouldn't have been there to touch the suitcase or the tape. In the kitchen, where a flashlight was on a counter and the Rs claimed "wasn't theirs, but they had one just like it", and which may have been the murder weapon, the Rs friends were wiping the counters down and cleaning things off. Who knows- maybe one of THEM wiped off the flashlight. And batteries.
In light of the alleged RN's instructions NOT to talk to even a stray dog, the Rs decision to have several cars and lots of people arriving at a house that the note said would be "monitored" is suspicious to me.

In hindsight this might seem clear to you, but at the time I think there were elements of doubt and confusion. They were operating on the premise that JBR was kidnapped for ransom. They knew right away they were not able to comply with the ransom note requirements.

Meanwhile, what other paths can you think of for the DNA getting on JBR's clothes? You gave me one possibility but I know there are more than one.

1. Party surface or handshake==>JR and/or PR's hands==>JBR's clothes.
2. ?
3. ?

 

[WHITEFANG]

In hindsight this might seem clear to you, but at the time I think there were elements of doubt and confusion. They were operating on the premise that JBR was kidnapped for ransom. They knew right away they were not able to comply with the ransom note requirements.

Why wouldn't they be able to comply or at least pretend to comply for the sake of Joni's safety, you know?


But, HOTYH, just because they knew they wouldn't be able to meet the demands of the "kidnappers," they wouldn't want them to know that, would they? Having a bunch of buds over would signal immediately their unwillingness to cooperate and thus jeopardize Joni's life. Wouldn't it?
Perhaps they were very sociable people. They wanted, enjoyed, needed plenty of company most of the time.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why wouldn't they be able to comply or at least pretend to comply for the sake of Joni's safety, you know?


But, HOTYH, just because they knew they wouldn't be able to meet the demands of the "kidnappers," they wouldn't want them to know that, would they? Having a bunch of buds over would signal immediately their unwillingness to cooperate and thus jeopardize Joni's life. Wouldn't it?
Perhaps they were very sociable people. They wanted, enjoyed, needed plenty of company most of the time.

The RN author was an idiot.

The reader was supposed to stop, sit down, and read 350 words to get it? My guess is PR made it thru about two or three sentences before she dropped the letter and called 911.

 

[madeleine]

The RN author was an idiot.

An definitely had a MEAN tone.....don't try to grow a brain,you're not the only fact cat,victory

arrogant and mean if you ask me

why would PR have that tone if she wrote it?doesn't make any sense

John,John,John.....sounds more like implicating him than putting distance between him and what happened,if she wrote it as the cover-up why make it sound like the author knew her husband,that's not diverting attention, is it.

 

[BOESP]

An definitely had a MEAN tone.....don't try to grow a brain,you're not the only fact cat,victory

arrogant and mean if you ask me

why would PR have that tone if she wrote it?doesn't make any sense

John,John,John.....sounds more like implicating him than putting distance between him and what happened,if she wrote it as the cover-up why make it sound like the author knew her husband,that's not diverting attention, is it.

Aggrandizement, arrogance, self preservation (with CYA).

 

[cynic]

You think it was skin cells,I think it was saliva or blood,I don't mind.
And talking about experimental errors,those can happen also with regard to the ransom note and the fibers,do you agree?

I believe that ML was hinting more at the possibility of it being due to “some extraneous factor,” but it was an odd word to use.
I wouldn’t say that any aspect of the definition of “artifact” would apply to the RN or fiber, however, that evidence would certainly not have gone unchallenged at a trial for other reasons. I would have been quite happy to let a jury decide, though.

With respect to the DNA, context is extremely important.
You suggest that saliva and blood are viable possibilities for the source of “unknown” DNA within the tiny blood spot on JBR’s panties.
As I’ve mentioned previously, you have to consider the following.
If it is a saliva and blood mixture why was it not found elsewhere on JBR, specifically from vaginal area swabs?
We know that the coroner found evidence of wiping extending down to JBR’s thighs, however swabs of those areas did not reveal “unknown” DNA.
Additionally, it was not found in visible dried blood in JBR’s vaginal area.
I ask again, if a saliva & blood mix found its way onto one small spot of JBR’s panties, presumably from oral sexual activity, why was it not found anywhere else on the skin surface of JBR?
The same question remains if it was a blood & blood mix; (I find it inconceivable that there was a bleeding intruder.)
JBR bleeding only her unmixed blood onto panties that had been handled, and consequently, contaminated with skin cells, fits the DNA findings.

I would assume a screen for the presence of various bodily fluids would have been done.
If it was not done, well, that would have been grossly incompetent.
One example of what is normally done is below (from a transcript of the Koby Bryant trial.)

ELIZABETH JOHNSON. Well, the panties and the crotch were separate, so they got separate evidence numbers. Initially they were photographed, examined under UV light, examined under visible light. We made tests, presumptive tests, for the presence of blood, which is ortho-tolidine and hydrogen peroxide were our tests reagents.
We did testing for the presence of semen with acid phosphatase and testing for P30 protein and for amylase, which is an enzyme found in saliva in high concentrations. And that was it at our initial examination stage.

 

[MurriFlower]

I believe that ML was hinting more at the possibility of it being due to “some extraneous factor,” but it was an odd word to use.
I wouldn’t say that any aspect of the definition of “artifact” would apply to the RN or fiber, however, that evidence would certainly not have gone unchallenged at a trial for other reasons. I would have been quite happy to let a jury decide, though.

With respect to the DNA, context is extremely important.
You suggest that saliva and blood are viable possibilities for the source of “unknown” DNA within the tiny blood spot on JBR’s panties.
As I’ve mentioned previously, you have to consider the following.
If it is a saliva and blood mixture why was it not found elsewhere on JBR, specifically from vaginal area swabs?
We know that the coroner found evidence of wiping extending down to JBR’s thighs, however swabs of those areas did not reveal “unknown” DNA.
Additionally, it was not found in visible dried blood in JBR’s vaginal area.
I ask again, if a saliva & blood mix found its way onto one small spot of JBR’s panties, presumably from oral sexual activity, why was it not found anywhere else on the skin surface of JBR?
The same question remains if it was a blood & blood mix; (I find it inconceivable that there was a bleeding intruder.)
JBR bleeding only her unmixed blood onto panties that had been handled, and consequently, contaminated with skin cells, fits the DNA findings.

I would assume a screen for the presence of various bodily fluids would have been done.
If it was not done, well, that would have been grossly incompetent.
One example of what is normally done is below (from a transcript of the Koby Bryant trial.)

ELIZABETH JOHNSON. Well, the panties and the crotch were separate, so they got separate evidence numbers. Initially they were photographed, examined under UV light, examined under visible light. We made tests, presumptive tests, for the presence of blood, which is ortho-tolidine and hydrogen peroxide were our tests reagents.
We did testing for the presence of semen with acid phosphatase and testing for P30 protein and for amylase, which is an enzyme found in saliva in high concentrations. And that was it at our initial examination stage.

The more I read Cynic, the more I understand that the investigators were only looking at the Ramseys from the beginning (or even before JBR was found). A bit like the RDI's on this forum, they dismissed anything inconsistent with their theory and magnified anything vaguely incriminating. Incredible as it seems, I suspect they probably were grossly incompenent in what they tested. The tape from her mouth, the bed sheets, the pineapple and spoon, PW's matching jacket, for instance. The LA deposition is an eye opener!

 

[joeskidbeck]

An definitely had a MEAN tone.....don't try to grow a brain,you're not the only fact cat,victory

arrogant and mean if you ask me

why would PR have that tone if she wrote it?doesn't make any sense

John,John,John.....sounds more like implicating him than putting distance between him and what happened,if she wrote it as the cover-up why make it sound like the author knew her husband,that's not diverting attention, is it.

Wouldn't an intruder/kidnapper/murderer be mean? Or a "small foreign faction"? She intended to sound mean because that's the way she thought a kidnapper or sff would sound.

 

[WHITEFANG]

The RN author was an idiot.

The reader was supposed to stop, sit down, and read 350 words to get it? My guess is PR made it thru about two or three sentences before she dropped the letter and called 911.[/QUOTE

Yet, the Ramseys didn't know what/who they were dealing with in this situation and for them to invite friends over right away, disregarding the warning of those claiming to have their daughter, was a precarious decision.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I would have read every single word of that note. Yes, call 911, but then, you sit down and read that note. Your daughter's life depends on it!

 

[WHITEFANG]

this makes more sense to me, too, joeskidback. I knew people who were very involved with their friends and the wife in particular loved to have company. I can see them responding like this because to do otherwise would have been too difficult. They were grown, mature "successful" people who just wanted people around almost continuously.

 

[MurriFlower]

I would have read every single word of that note. Yes, call 911, but then, you sit down and read that note. Your daughter's life depends on it!

That's what JR did.

JR: Well I’m, it’s a lot of screaming going on around that, but we saw the note and read the first part. Ah, I think I might have run upstairs to look in JonBenet’s room. At one point I laid it on the floor and spread it out so I could read it real fast without having to sit and read it. At some point we checked Burke, I think I checked Burke. Patsy asked what should we do, and I said call the police, and she called 911.

TT: Patsy called 911 (inaudible).

I think it's what you call "panic".

 

[WHITEFANG]

That's what JR did.

JR: Well I’m, it’s a lot of screaming going on around that, but we saw the note and read the first part. Ah, I think I might have run upstairs to look in JonBenet’s room. At one point I laid it on the floor and spread it out so I could read it real fast without having to sit and read it. At some point we checked Burke, I think I checked Burke. Patsy asked what should we do, and I said call the police, and she called 911.

TT: Patsy called 911 (inaudible).

I think it's what you call "panic".

It is heartwarming to see how well everyone other than the Ramseys knows exactly what they should have done and what they would do in the event their child was missing, finding a bazaar ransom/kidnapping letter at 6am the day after Christmas. I would have peed my pants.

 

[Tadpole12]

That's what JR did.

JR: Well I’m, it’s a lot of screaming going on around that, but we saw the note and read the first part. Ah, I think I might have run upstairs to look in JonBenet’s room. At one point I laid it on the floor and spread it out so I could read it real fast without having to sit and read it. At some point we checked Burke, I think I checked Burke. Patsy asked what should we do, and I said call the police, and she called 911.

TT: Patsy called 911 (inaudible).

I think it's what you call "panic".

Hi MurriFlower.

PR: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and my daughter is missing
911: Does it say who took her?
PR: What?
911: Does it say who took her?
PR: No I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.
911: It’s a ransom note.
PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please


When questioned, she was able to respond SBTC.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.

... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence,
2L2L2bad?

 

[WHITEFANG]

I was looking at this really from more of a DNA perspective, so we can skip the overdone RDI propaganda.

The RDI scenario for the innocent deposit of DNA inside the underwear and on the waistband at a party requires that she be wearing both the underwear and the longjohns at the party, right? If not then please elaborate as to the DNA path.

Anything you guys can pitch, I can hit!

Not that hard. I suggest using more facts and less fiction:

The genetic material from an unknown male has been discovered on a swab sample from a blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear. More genetic material from the same unknown male was found in scrapings from two (2) places that were tested on JBR's longjohn waistband.

These new facts are inarguable and the implications are obvious except to the blind. Facts such as these were never even sought after by lazy 'look at the parents' armchair types.

Which scenario is more common, more believable, more likely? The scenario of primary transfer by the DNA owner while JBR was wearing both items, in the course of the criminal act? We know the perp handled these items, right? Its not that surprising then to find a trace, right?

I've been asking for a believable albeit less likely RDI scenario that accounts for the DNA facts, but all I've read is the wildcard and vague 'secondary transfer' over and over.

Every male who was present at any time when Joni's body was transferred to the coroner, in the custody of the Boulder authorities, was present during any part of the autopsy and when any of her clothing was touched, removed, handled, examined after her murder should/must be tested for his DNA to rule out accidental/incidental contamination.

 

[BBB167893]

The reader was supposed to stop, sit down, and read 350 words to get it? My guess is PR made it thru about two or three sentences before she dropped the letter and called 911.

That's her story. Too bad she knew what it said at the end...:waitasec: