IDIs On This Forum?

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

we are talking about the relevance of fiber evidence in criminal cases. What are the odds that two people wearing jackets bought from the same store are BOTH considered as suspects who may have left fiber evidence back in incriminating locations at the scene of the crime?

Fiber analysis is no statistical procedure, but is conducted in a forensics lab which uses chemical and physical tests to determine the nature of the fibers.
The fibers themselves are not 'a mix', but garments can be made of a mix of fibers.
Example: men's shirts are frequently made of a mix of fibers: 35 % cotton fibers, 65 % polyester fibers.

rashomon,

OK, we can agree to disagree, I stand by what I said, fiber analysis is not conclusive, it does not prove who killed anyone, and is open to argument on the basis the fibers may have multiple sources, or not represent a percentage match.

.

 

[Ames]

Did this quotation come from a media source or from a deposition?

I thought that HOTYH was trying to be sarcastic...thats the way that I took it, because we were saying that there is proof that JR's shirt fibers were found on and in JB's crotch area.


The quote from HOTYH below:

Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
OK well then I should apply the same rule and assume this report to be correct also:

"forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer."


I thought that this last sentence was just something that HOTYH made up....while being sarcastic. I could be wrong though....

 

[BOESP]

...


Ok I thought it said DNA :waitasec:

I can see why my question and response was confusing, based on the partial quotation I had replied to. Below is an excerpt from Holdontoyourhat, using a media report from 48 Hours to refute a deposition involving Mr. Levin. A deposition trumps a media report any day of the week.


Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat

The depo doesn't 'imply Mr. Levin has access to that type of knowledge'.

The depo makes it very clear Mr. Levin claimed to have a report on fiber evidence that he had refused to share. What you had in 2000 and appear to be relying on today is just somebody's word there is a match.

What you don't have is an impartial scientific comparison. Somebody's word isn't a valid source for a scientific match from one item to another.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I suspect you know the latter phrase does not follow directly from the first, since the killer's identity and the identity matching the dna profile may be two entirely different people.
.

Thats not how I read the article. It read that the DNA was mixed with JBR's blood. That's probably how they determined the DNA belongs to the killer.

Fiber evidence is never conclusive, similarly Patsy's fibers, neither tell us who killed JonBenet, also the forensic scientists have left out any unidentified fibers discovered either on the tape, or JonBenet's body, this further underlines the dna's status.

Normally fiber evidence is inconclusive and cannot provide a direct match, but in the case of John's Israeli shirt the coincidence of similar fibers arriving via an intruder are remote.

What is extremely damaging to the credibility of John Ramsey's account is that the fibers were found on JonBenet's underwear and genitals, and after she had been wiped down, and likely redressed in the size-12 underwear.

This places John Ramsey or someone wearing his shirt at the scene of the crime!

.

All this takes us back where we started. Unlike the autopsy report, there is no expert witness testimony available that states the fibers found on JBR are consistent with JR's shirt. That the fibers are consistent with one another was a claim made without any basis or support to go along with the claim, even to this day. It is therefore only an opinion, frequently stated here as if it were fact.

 

[BOESP]

Thats not how I read the article. It read that the DNA was mixed with JBR's blood. That's probably how they determined the DNA belongs to the killer.



All this takes us back where we started. Unlike the autopsy report, there is no expert witness testimony available that states the fibers found on JBR are consistent with JR's shirt. That the fibers are consistent with one another was a claim made without any basis or support to go along with the claim, even to this day. It is therefore only an opinion, frequently stated here as if it were fact.

Mr. Levin used the term forensic evidence when phrasing his question about fiber evidence. The original deposition containing that question is a sworn document that can be used in court. Obviously, the on-line version is not an authentic document but I seriously doubt Levin would jeopardize his career by trying to influence a deponent by using deception. I suspect he could back up what he was saying, meaning he probably had a report based on forensic testing of the fibers. If you prefer to use media reports over transcriptions of depositions that is your choice.

 

[Jayelles]

rashomon,

Really so if two people wear similar jackets purchased from the same store are checked to see if they match forensically and the fiber analysis says yes, what do you then conclude?

Fiber analysis is a statistical procedure since there are few pure fibers, they are usually a mix. In court the defense can play on this.


.

I don't know if this is what you are referring to, but according to Patsy, her jacket and Priscilla's were not purchased from the same store:-

14 A. Well, Priscilla had had one like
15 it that I admired. And she told me, I
16 believe she told me she got hers at EMS.
17 So I went there to look. And they didn't
18 have one or I didn't want to get one exactly
19 like hers. So I think I got that one at
20 Marshals in Boulder.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know if this is what you are referring to, but according to Patsy, her jacket and Priscilla's were not purchased from the same store:-

Jayelles,
Yes, more or less, the store is not as important as the same style of jacket or item of clothing.

So if two suspects can be a source for the fibers, this can make comparision appear more complicated, and in a jury trial a source of deliberate confusion, thats before the defense argue that fiber ratio's can vary during production runs?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Thats not how I read the article. It read that the DNA was mixed with JBR's blood. That's probably how they determined the DNA belongs to the killer.



All this takes us back where we started. Unlike the autopsy report, there is no expert witness testimony available that states the fibers found on JBR are consistent with JR's shirt. That the fibers are consistent with one another was a claim made without any basis or support to go along with the claim, even to this day. It is therefore only an opinion, frequently stated here as if it were fact.

Holdontoyourhat,

Thats not how I read the article. It read that the DNA was mixed with JBR's blood. That's probably how they determined the DNA belongs to the killer.

Mixed? Thats an ambiguous word, are you saying the dna had been combined or distributed throughout JonBenet's blood or that the dna was soaked in blood?

The unknown dna is old and biologically degraded, this is in distinction to the dna from JonBenet's blood or skin cells, which are fresh, and laid down that night/morning.

So your position is patently that of all the dna an intruder could deposit on a clean pair of size-12 underwear, the intruder inadvertently left this one piece of degraded dna inside JonBenet's underwear, but no fresh dna and also nowhere else on her person?

Curently this unknown dna has the same status as all the other unlisted and unknown fibers discovered on JonBenet, that is they are likely to be environmental debri, until it is shown otherwise.

All this takes us back where we started. Unlike the autopsy report, there is no expert witness testimony available that states the fibers found on JBR are consistent with JR's shirt. That the fibers are consistent with one another was a claim made without any basis or support to go along with the claim, even to this day. It is therefore only an opinion, frequently stated here as if it were fact.

Not quite, you are singularly failing to take account of the forensic evidence, John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt, is not your average off the shelf Target item, so the probability that someone else deposited the fibers is remote!

For Mr Levin to make a statement saying the fibers match those found on JonBenet outwith any courtroom is probably as good as you will get, any retraction by him would very likely lead to the collapse of any case against John Ramsey.

.

 

[rashomon]

Jayelles,
Yes, more or less, the store is not as important as the same style of jacket or item of clothing.

So if two suspects can be a source for the fibers, this can make comparision appear more complicated, and in a jury trial a source of deliberate confusion, thats before the defense argue that fiber ratio's can vary during production runs?

PW has never been a suspect, therefore the point is moot.

But just for the sake of the discussion:

A jury always has to look at the totality of the evidence implicating the defendant. In Patsy's case, aside from the fiber evidence, the ransom note also points to her autorship.
Then there is the Ramseys' refusal to cooperate with the police. Behavior is circumstantial evidence too.
So what is more probable: that PW (who happened to possess the same jacket) or Patsy was involved in JonBenet's death?
The jury would have to believe that PW mimicked Patsy's handwriting to perfection and bludgeoned and strangled JonBenet in the Ramsey home.
And John Ramsey helped PW in this, redressing his severely injured daughter in fresh underwear. How realistic is that?

Do you think any juror objectively looking at the evidence would buy that story?

The fact that PW had the same jacket would not exonerate Patsy one bit. jmo

 

[Ames]

PW has never been a suspect, therefore the point is moot.

But just for the sake of the discussion:

A jury always has to look at the totality of the evidence implicating the defendant. In Patsy's case, aside from the fiber evidence, the ransom note also points to her autorship.
Then there is the Ramseys' refusal to cooperate with the police. Behavior is circumstantial evidence too.
So what is more probable: that PW (who happened to possess the same jacket) or Patsy was involved in JonBenet's death?
The jury would have to believe that PW mimicked Patsy's handwriting to perfection and bludgeoned and strangled JonBenet in the Ramsey home.
And John Ramsey helped PW in this, redressing his severely injured daughter in fresh underwear. How realistic is that?

Do you think any juror objectively looking at the evidence would buy that story?

The fact that PW had the same jacket would not exonerate Patsy one bit. jmo

You are right...and don't forget the fact that PW was host of a Christmas party that night. It is suspected that the "intruder" hid for several hours in the Ramsey home...while the Rams were at PW Christmas party. I do believe that she would have been noticably missed, if she had left her OWN party early. I am quite sure that THIS would have been brought up in court too.

 

[Solace]

Thats not how I read the article. It read that the DNA was mixed with JBR's blood. That's probably how they determined the DNA belongs to the killer.

Why does it have to belong to the killer, because Austin and Gray say so. The forensic scientist came out and said that is not absolute. Why is it not possible and very likely that the DNA was there before that evening? This is what I mean by the "shoddy" reporting that 48 Hours does. Rather than accepting what they said as gospel, why don't you read up on it and find out for yourself, so you can make your own opinion.

 

[UKGuy]

PW has never been a suspect, therefore the point is moot.

But just for the sake of the discussion:

A jury always has to look at the totality of the evidence implicating the defendant. In Patsy's case, aside from the fiber evidence, the ransom note also points to her autorship.
Then there is the Ramseys' refusal to cooperate with the police. Behavior is circumstantial evidence too.
So what is more probable: that PW (who happened to possess the same jacket) or Patsy was involved in JonBenet's death?
The jury would have to believe that PW mimicked Patsy's handwriting to perfection and bludgeoned and strangled JonBenet in the Ramsey home.
And John Ramsey helped PW in this, redressing his severely injured daughter in fresh underwear. How realistic is that?

Do you think any juror objectively looking at the evidence would buy that story?

The fact that PW had the same jacket would not exonerate Patsy one bit. jmo

rashomon,
Possibly, why not, thats why expensive attorneys are hired, explicitly to convince gullible jurors with the use of rhetoric and fallacious arguments, that the defendent not only could not have committed the said crime , but did not because the fibers demonstrate that another person may have killed the victim?

But just for the sake of the discussion:

There is nothing to stop an attorney spinning some theory that PW was involved in the death of JonBenet, that she used John's shirt to wipe JonBenet down, and generally fake a crime-scene, that this was the result of some personal feud or financial rivarly etc etc, he would magnify the importance of any common fiber source, employ ad-hominem arguments to portray the White's as jealous socialites, possible even suggesting a link between JonBenet's chronic abuse and any visits made to the White's by JonBenet, including her sense of not being pretty and feeling uncomfortable whilst attending the party, along with any incidents where JonBenet was wiped down at the White's house. e.g. suggesting sexual molestation as a motive for JonBenet's death. The point is not if it is true but whether enough doubt can be instilled into the minds of the jurors thus securing a not-guilty verdict. Just think OJ.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee has said that when it comes to fiber evidence- fibers can be shown to be CONSISTANT WITH but not as absolutely coming from a specific source. And this is obviously because identical garments made of the same material from the same lot would of course have the same fibers. BUT if those fibers also have any DNA evidence on them, such as bodily fluids, etc. of course that changes the situation dramatically. And it also has to be considered WHO owned an item whose fibers were "consistant with" fibers at a crime scene. A jury is supposed to consider all those factors. Fibers found in a place like the genital area of a dead child that match fibers from a shirt owned by a parent should carry MUCH more weight when assessing guilt than, let's say, fibers just found in the area of the crime. Fibers in general can't be dated (just like fingerprints can't be dated) BUT fibers found under the tape from JBR's mouth, tied into the garrotte knot, and on JBR's crotch area and panties CAN be dated to the time of her murder, because the objects like the tape and garrotte were not ON her prior to the time of her murder. Fibers on other things, such as the floor, bed, etc. could arguably have been left at other times, especially when the fibers come from clothing owed by people living in the home.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Too bad Dr. Lee didn't state the fibers from JBR were 'consistent' with fibers from JR's shirt. No other expert witness has stated that either. So there's no expert testimony on the subject. We're all entitled to our opinion, and the idea the fibers are consistent with one another is just that--an opinion.

 

[coloradokares]

Too bad Dr. Lee didn't state the fibers from JBR were 'consistent' with fibers from JR's shirt. No other expert witness has stated that either. So there's no expert testimony on the subject. We're all entitled to our opinion, and the idea the fibers are consistent with one another is just that--an opinion.

Levin said it and he could not in his poistion and involvement with the case said it had it been untrue. If and when this ever goes to trial I think alot will be proven. What we need is a prosecutorial branch with the desire to do whats right at last and lay this case to rest. That is my opinion. The case is not unsolved but remains unprosecuted, there is the difference. Powerful inflences were at play. I believe that . This was Boulder.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Levin said it and he could not in his poistion and involvement with the case said it had it been untrue. If and when this ever goes to trial I think alot will be proven. What we need is a prosecutorial branch with the desire to do whats right at last and lay this case to rest. That is my opinion. The case is not unsolved but remains unprosecuted, there is the difference. Powerful inflences were at play. I believe that . This was Boulder.

Powerful influences were not at play. If they had enough forensic evidence, and maybe a motive, they would've prosecuted. Fact is there was no direct evidence linking any family member to JBR's murder.

If any family member authored that ransom note, this case would've been to trial in 1997. You just can't hide your handwriting in 2 1/2 pages.

 

[UKGuy]

Powerful influences were not at play. If they had enough forensic evidence, and maybe a motive, they would've prosecuted. Fact is there was no direct evidence linking any family member to JBR's murder.

If any family member authored that ransom note, this case would've been to trial in 1997. You just can't hide your handwriting in 2 1/2 pages.

Holdontoyourhat,

Fact is there was no direct evidence linking any family member to JBR's murder.

Ah but there is, firstly there is no forensic evidence showing that an intruder was ever in the Ramsey house, secondly this points the finger of suspicion at the remaining residents.

Also, fibers from Patsy are embedded into the knotting on the garrote and on underside of the tape affixed to JonBenet's mouth.

Fibers from Johns shirt were discovered in JonBenet's genital region.

This links the parents to the crime-scene, all your shaving and paring of what constitutes evidence does not detract from the fact that the above links are what has been claimed to have been discovered.

In contrast you offer no exculpatory evidence in support of the Ramsey's innocence!

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,


Ah but there is, firstly there is no forensic evidence showing that an intruder was ever in the Ramsey house, secondly this points the finger of suspicion at the remaining residents.

Also, fibers from Patsy are embedded into the knotting on the garrote and on underside of the tape affixed to JonBenet's mouth.

Fibers from Johns shirt were discovered in JonBenet's genital region.

This links the parents to the crime-scene, all your shaving and paring of what constitutes evidence does not detract from the fact that the above links are what has been claimed to have been discovered.

In contrast you offer no exculpatory evidence in support of the Ramsey's innocence!

.

The ransom note is by far the best forensic evidence of an intruder, as it has not been matched to handwriting of any household member. Claiming simply that PR wrote the note as part of staging is one way of simply denying that this evidence exists.

Claiming the DNA was background DNA is another way of denying forensic evidence exists.

I can see how RDI can believe there is no forensic evidence of an intruder, because the existing evidence is simply denied, based on claims.

The ransom note and DNA may be the forensic evidence that is used finally to convict JBR's killer. The only question would be whether the ransom note or the DNA is Exhibit A.

 

[UKGuy]

The ransom note is by far the best forensic evidence of an intruder, as it has not been matched to handwriting of any household member. Claiming simply that PR wrote the note as part of staging is one way of simply denying that this evidence exists.

Claiming the DNA was background DNA is another way of denying forensic evidence exists.

I can see how RDI can believe there is no forensic evidence of an intruder, because the existing evidence is simply denied, based on claims.

The ransom note and DNA may be the forensic evidence that is used finally to convict JBR's killer. The only question would be whether the ransom note or the DNA is Exhibit A.

Holdontoyourhat,
mmm , nice try, but none of the above can be shown to have ever originated from outside of the Ramsey house, you need to do this before you can ever link them to a phantom intruder.

The ransom note paper, the pen, the pad all belong to the house.

The size-12 underwear belongs to the house.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence linking any intruder to the death of JonBenet irrespective of whether I am a RDI or an Alien Did It.

Your position is untenable, ad-hominem arguments regarding other peoples opinions and beliefs is a poor basis for establishing any outline of a intruder theory. You should consider emailing Lou Smit for some backup he is the originater of this theory?


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The ransom note paper, the pen, the pad all belong to the house.

.

UKGuy, the handwriting doesn't belong to the house. Neither the tape or cord belong to the house. The DNA doesn't belong to the house. The unidentified dark fibers don't belong to the house. Wasn't there a stuffed Santa bear that didn't belong to the house?

The idea PR wrote the note as staging, the idea that PR bought the cord and tape, and that there is proof, and that the unidentified dark fibers belong to JR's shirt are only a matter of opinion at this point.

The cord, tape, handwriting, and yes, even the fibers and DNA are all forensic evidence that someday could all be matched to the same intruder.

Zero evidence of an intruder is how some have chosen to interpret the evidence. It appears to me that an intruder left handwriting, cord, tape, some fibers, and some DNA. The intruder took with him, at the very least, a piece of paintbrush, cord roll, tape roll, and whatever he used to club JBR with.