JBR, PR and UMI

[DeeDee249]

Please post the source of this.

Please read Patsy's 2000 interview with LE in the presence of her lawyer LW. It can be found in the archives here http://www.acandyrose.com

It is pretty far down at the bottom of that page, but in this interview she is specifically told that fibers identical to her red/black/gray sweater/jacket were found in three places specific to the crime (the words of LE) - the paint tray, the tape and the knot of the cord.

 

[MurriFlower]

Please read Patsy's 2000 interview with LE in the presence of her lawyer LW. It can be found in the archives here http://www.acandyrose.com

It is pretty far down at the bottom of that page, but in this interview she is specifically told that fibers identical to her red/black/gray sweater/jacket were found in three places specific to the crime (the words of LE) - the paint tray, the tape and the knot of the cord.

Thanks DD

Yes, as I suspected (or hoped) her lawyer questioned the evidence and the investigators produced none. PR did not answer on his advice as to do so would be 'pure speculation'. I would post the whole exchange but it is repetitive. Suffice to say that it is not conclusive, she did not answer the question in that interview on the (correct) advice of her lawyer.

The following day they started the same thing with JR about the fibres in JBR's pants. Same result, the lawyer asked for evidence, they could not produce it.

Here's what he said on the second day.

18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you

19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give

20 us the test result instead of representing

21 what the test result is. I, for the life

22 of me, do not understand the logic.

23 You say we can tell you what the

24 test result is, but we can't show you the

25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and

0063

1 answer this hypothetical question.

2 If that information means that

3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would

4 not hesitate to give us that report, period.

5 So let's move to something else.

6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to

7 another topic.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Patsy's fibers WERE found on the tape.
The bed was never reported as "wet". What LW is trying to confuse here is to get out of his interviewee that the bed was WET. Because the sheets were not removed right away, by the time they were collected they were dry (but stained and smelled of urine). No one who investigated the house reported a wet bed. There WAS creatinine (dried urine) on her sheets. It was not possible to tell when that was left, however. If JB never made it into her bed that night, the urine stains could have been from the night before.

The tape was not tested properly. That is the distinction she made.

 

[madeleine]

People keep forgetting who else had access to that piece of tape BEFORE LE collected it.

And this is how one of the lead detectives in this case finds excuses for the same suspect(pardon,one of his friends) I am talking about.

"....took a walk inside the house,certainly with the best of intentions.No one had told him not to."


He messed with the crime scene (window,suitcase,tape) because no one had told him NOT TO.Okay.
And of course everything Fleet did what with the best of intentions in ST's vision,oh I wonder why.Actually I don't wonder.

 

[DeeDee249]

People keep forgetting who else had access to that piece of tape BEFORE LE collected it.

And this is how one of the lead detectives in this case finds excuses for the same suspect(pardon,one of his friends) I am talking about.

"....took a walk inside the house,certainly with the best of intentions.No one had told him not to."


He messed with the crime scene (window,suitcase,tape) because no one had told him NOT TO.Okay.
And of course everything Fleet did what with the best of intentions in ST's vision,oh I wonder why.Actually I don't wonder.

Still doesn't explain Patsy's fibers on it. The tape never left the basement and Patsy claimed to have not seen her daughter till she was brought up, at which point Patsy came in the room after she was covered with the blanket.

 

[madeleine]

Still doesn't explain Patsy's fibers on it. The tape never left the basement and Patsy claimed to have not seen her daughter till she was brought up, at which point Patsy came in the room after she was covered with the blanket.

Patsy was in contact with Fleet,Fleet was in contact with the tape.Innocent transfer?Still,we don't know if those are indeed fibers from her sweater or something else.And I love the way people always AVOID the questions/issues re FW.Says a lot.

 

[WHITEFANG]

The media focus for the trial was extraordinarily intense and sensational. The Chamberlains made several unsuccessful appeals, including the final High Court appeal. After all legal options had been exhausted, the chance discovery of a piece of Azaria's clothing in an area full of dingo lairs led to Lindy Chamberlain's release from prison, on "compassionate grounds." She was later exonerated of all charges. While the case is officially unsolved, the report of a dingo attack is generally accepted. Recent deadly dingo attacks in other areas of Australia have strengthened the case for the dingo theory.

The public viewed the mother's responses to questions about her involvement with the murder of her own child to be cold, aloof and inconsistent with a grieving mother.

The Innocent Project has numerous true stories of death row inmates awaiting imminent execution, freed after new evidence proved their innocence.

A great movie for everyone to see is Twelve Angry Men.

 

[BBB167893]

I guess it's a matter of how you read the evidence.

That I'll agree with 100%.

Look, madeleine, you've known me for a while now. You know that I'm very big on the idea of taking an holistic view of this case. What that means is that I look at the case as a whole, rather than just trying to stress one thing over all else. I will agree with you that every single piece of evidence in this case, taken by itself in a vacuum can be argued ten ways to Tuesday. But when you take everything into consideration as I do, the scale tips one way.

You will say that PR wrote the note and that the DNA is not related to the crime.

I have my reasons.

But I (or anyone else) could say we DON'T KNOW who left the note and the DNA at the crime scene which can be seen as evidence that someone else WAS in the house that night.

Given my past, I can understand that.

 

[BBB167893]

If I understood correctly (pls correct me if I am wrong,I read a lot lately and there are too many things on my mind right now) the experts who stated that PR wrote the note were hired for the C.Wolf trial,right?

Not all of them. But even if so, what's your point? If you're going to say that these people were all hacks looking for money or publicity, you needn't bother. I've heard it all before, and it's garbage. That I know of, none of them took any money and in Epstein's case, he wouldn't touch it until the Justice Department told him there was no conflict of interest. That's not even considering their credentials (which are as good as I guess they can be in this field--whether or not that's worth anything depends on how you view the practice of document analysis).

 

[BBB167893]

So, SD you reckon that something presented in court as evidence is not true because there was 'only one side of the evidence presented'. However, a statement made by one of the investigators in the case, not backed up by anything other than what they 'believe' is truth.

Don't put words in my mouth, MurriFlower. More importantly, your choice of examples highlights the exact problem, so allow me to explain:

First of all, the presentation of evidence in court during a criminal proceeding is quite different from the presentation of evidence in a civil proceeding, such as this one. In a civil case, if one party makes an assertion and the other party doesn't dispute it, it's accepted as fact, whether it is fact or not. The Rs and their lawyers presented a lot of things as fact based on preliminary reports which were illegally taken from the case and Wolf's lawyer made NO attempts to challenge them. Not ONE PAGE of the actual police file found its way into that courtroom. The fault for that lies with the opposing attorney. He made no attempt to examine the case file because he was arrogant enough to believe he didn't need it. Thus, the judge had no choice but to accept them as fact, whether they are fact or not. Indeed, someone--I don't remember who--said that this instance is an object lesson for the folly of trying to discover the truth through lawsuits because all-too often, it comes down to which side is more skillful at lying.

Does that help? And that brings me directly to your second point. For one thing, you'll find that "we believe" is a fairly common phrase in the back-and-forth of legal wrangling, so I wouldn't read too much into that. But more importantly, this illustrates the difference between criminal and civil proceedings. The investigators here were prosecuting attorneys working on behalf of the DA's office. Unlike police officers, who are allowed to make flase statements to suspects in order to trick them into slipping up, prosecuting attorneys are FORBIDDEN from doing that by the canons of ethics. Specifically, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others states:

"In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

Now, keep in mind that this incident happened in LW's own office where all sides KNEW they were going to be videotaped. If Kane and Levin and Morrisey were STUPID enough to make false statements about this evidence, they would face any number of reprimands, up to and including losing their law licenses.

Hope that helps.

Then he goes on to say 'and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death.'

Mm-hmm. And as we found out later, she can't. Moreover, if you've never seen the videotape of that exchange, you're really missing out. PR's reaction is worth a thousand words. She goes from being completely calm and composed to looking like she's about to faint or throw up or both. Her eyes blink compulsively and her mouth turns into a sickly grin.

And I expect her lawyers first question would be 'now please show us the evidence where these fibres were matched to PR's sweater/jacket'

Of course we expect her lawyer to say that. It's a common legal ploy. It doesn't necessarily mean anything. Here, let me show you what another lawyer had to say about it. This is a passage from Wendy Murphy's book, And Justice for Some:

Lin Wood did what lawyers always do when investigators ask tough questions that back the suspect into a corner: he filibustered. Suffice it to say that if they had a legitimate explanation at the time for such damning evidence, there would have been no blather.

So, can you show me this SD?

I'd say I've shown you quite a lot.

 

[BBB167893]

People keep forgetting who else had access to that piece of tape BEFORE LE collected it.

And this is how one of the lead detectives in this case finds excuses for the same suspect(pardon,one of his friends) I am talking about.

"....took a walk inside the house,certainly with the best of intentions.No one had told him not to."


He messed with the crime scene (window,suitcase,tape) because no one had told him NOT TO.Okay.
And of course everything Fleet did what with the best of intentions in ST's vision,oh I wonder why.Actually I don't wonder.

I can understand your feelings, madeleine. But as I see it, FW did more to bring justice to JB than her parents ever did. Maybe that's why ST felt the way he did. In fact, if memory serves, that's exactly why.

 

[BBB167893]

Now, as I was saying, we seem to have gotten away from the topic of this thread.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy was in contact with Fleet,Fleet was in contact with the tape.Innocent transfer?Still,we don't know if those are indeed fibers from her sweater or something else.And I love the way people always AVOID the questions/issues re FW.Says a lot.

Since you seem to be going down the FWDI path, whether he was in contact with PR or not (and of course he was), there is NOT ONE piece of evidence to link him to THIS crime. The male DNA is NOT his, nor can any fiber, hair or any other evidence link him to being there when JB was killed.
If you are suggesting that Patsy's fibers got where they did by innocent transfer from FW, then where are HIS fibers?
And though FW admitted picking up the tape (stupid, stupid) we have seen no evidence that he handled the garrote or paint tray. Patsy's fibers were there also.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Still doesn't explain Patsy's fibers on it. The tape never left the basement and Patsy claimed to have not seen her daughter till she was brought up, at which point Patsy came in the room after she was covered with the blanket.

What is the origin of the roll of tape, since it was purchased, and where had it been prior to and up to its use on Joni?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Does that help? And that brings me directly to your second point. For one thing, you'll find that "we believe" is a fairly common phrase in the back-and-forth of legal wrangling, so I wouldn't read too much into that. But more importantly, this illustrates the difference between criminal and civil proceedings. The investigators here were prosecuting attorneys working on behalf of the DA's office. Unlike police officers, who are allowed to make flase statements to suspects in order to trick them into slipping up, prosecuting attorneys are FORBIDDEN from doing that by the canons of ethics.

This is the American Bar Association's official position on honesty and truthfulness in CIVIL and Criminal cases. Lawyers in Civil and Criminal cases must abide by Rule 4.1

"Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.


Specifically, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others states:
"In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

Now, keep in mind that this incident happened in LW's own office where all sides KNEW they were going to be videotaped. If Kane and Levin and Morrisey were STUPID enough to make false statements about this evidence, they would face any number of reprimands, up to and including losing their law licenses.

Hope that helps.

Of course we expect her lawyer to say that. It's a common legal ploy. It doesn't necessarily mean anything. Here, let me show you what another lawyer had to say about it. This is a passage from Wendy Murphy's book, And Justice for Some:

Here, her lawyer demands proof of the integrity of the evidence. Whether it is expected for a lawyer to make such a demand or not, it is vital that any evidence one wishes to present in court meets the standards to do so.

Lin Wood did what lawyers always do when investigators ask tough questions that back the suspect into a corner: he filibustered. Suffice it to say that if they had a legitimate explanation at the time for such damning evidence, there would have been no blather.

I'd say I've shown you quite a lot.[/QUOTE]

It is also unethical, according to the same judicial book of canons, to delay a case from proceeding unnecessarily, including stalling.

If Patsy didn't have the answer to that question, it doesn't necessarily follow that she murdered her daughter. She doesn't have to explain what she can't in order to be credible and innocent. In fact, to me, not being able to answer that question speaks more to her integrity than if she tried to manufacture some bull.

 

[DeeDee249]

What is the origin of the roll of tape, since it was purchased, and where had it been prior to and up to its use on Joni?

LE was able to determine where and when the tape was manufactured. It was actually fairly close to the time of the crime. They were also able to determine
which stores were supplied with that exact tape. By exact I mean the exact roll that piece came from. There were 2 in Boulder-an Army-Navy and McGuckins Hardware, where, as we all know, a receipt was produced showing purchases matching both the tape and the cord. If that is what you mean by "origin". Since Patsy denied owning the tape (she said she always bought the clear packing tape) and no roll was found, obviously it can't be proved the tape was from the house. But the receipt is enough to convince me. Most homes have duct tape. Only the perp knows where it was prior to use on JB. But I'd say it was probably in the house, in a utility drawer or some such place, or the basement.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wouldn't be the first time a defense lawyer did something unethical.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Still doesn't explain Patsy's fibers on it. The tape never left the basement and Patsy claimed to have not seen her daughter till she was brought up, at which point Patsy came in the room after she was covered with the blanket.

"Consistent with..." Perhaps there were thirty three million garments with fibers "consistent with" Patsy's. Has any official made an estimate?

 

[WHITEFANG]

LE was able to determine where and when the tape was manufactured. It was actually fairly close to the time of the crime. They were also able to determine
which stores were supplied with that exact tape. By exact I mean the exact roll that piece came from. There were 2 in Boulder-an Army-Navy and McGuckins Hardware, where, as we all know, a receipt was produced showing purchases matching both the tape and the cord. If that is what you mean by "origin". Since Patsy denied owning the tape (she said she always bought the clear packing tape) and no roll was found, obviously it can't be proved the tape was from the house. But the receipt is enough to convince me. Most homes have duct tape. Only the perp knows where it was prior to use on JB. But I'd say it was probably in the house, in a utility drawer or some such place, or the basement.

receipts produced by whom, how, when?

 

[DeeDee249]

receipts produced by whom, how, when?

Go and take a look. You know where.