JBR, PR and UMI

[BBB167893]

No,I don't mean they did it for publicity or money but in order to create reasonable doubt on behalf of their client (Wolf).

"Reasonable doubt" doesn't enter into civil proceedings, madeleine. That's not how it works.

Moreover, they must have had something, given the way the Rs tried to sabotage them.

That's what I meant earlier when I said that all this evidence sounds more like evidence a defence lawyer would use and not a prosecutor.

I just wish the opposition lawyer had used them more effectively.

 

[WHITEFANG]

and if Patsy never saw her body in the basement, and her body was already covered with an afghan and sweatshirt when Patsy came into the room and supposedly saw her daughter for the first time since putting her to bed the night before, then...when could Patsy have seen that heart.
Both parents have said they never read the autopsy or looked at the photos (can't blame them- I wouldn't either).
Obviously Patsy's statement about the heart was troubling later, so she then said that she really didn't "see" it, but only heard about it.
But if that were true, why describe it as a "pretty good little heart"?

She saw the heart when she dropped down on her body and screamed like a wild animal, and kissed her all over her face, her head, her hands...

 

[BBB167893]

and if Patsy never saw her body in the basement, and her body was already covered with an afghan and sweatshirt when Patsy came into the room and supposedly saw her daughter for the first time since putting her to bed the night before, then...when could Patsy have seen that heart.

:clap:

Both parents have said they never read the autopsy or looked at the photos (can't blame them- I wouldn't either).

:clap: Incidentally, that works either way. If they're innocent, because they don't want to think about the details. If guilty, because it helps plausible deniability (and avoids them facing the possibility she still was alive).

Obviously Patsy's statement about the heart was troubling later, so she then said that she really didn't "see" it, but only heard about it.
But if that were true, why describe it as a "pretty good little heart"?

:clap:

She saw the heart when she dropped down on her body and screamed like a wild animal, and kissed her all over her face, her head, her hands...

Except there's nothing from any source that says she did any of that. In fact (and this could give weight to the "theatrics" angle), from what I understand, she threw herself on the covered body and was led away almost immediately. I'll double-check, but I'm pretty sure JB was not uncovered until both parents had left the house.

You were doing pretty well for a while, though.

 

[DeeDee249]

and if Patsy never saw her body in the basement, and her body was already covered with an afghan and sweatshirt when Patsy came into the room and supposedly saw her daughter for the first time since putting her to bed the night before, then...when could Patsy have seen that heart.
Both parents have said they never read the autopsy or looked at the photos (can't blame them- I wouldn't either).
Obviously Patsy's statement about the heart was troubling later, so she then said that she really didn't "see" it, but only heard about it.
But if that were true, why describe it as a "pretty good little heart"?

She saw the heart when she dropped down on her body and screamed like a wild animal, and kissed her all over her face, her head, her hands...

Her hands weren't visible. Body was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt- like I said.

 

[DeeDee249]

I've got the same thing on here with any others I've asked about, (LHP & SS). IMO, these are the people who along with FW & PW are the closest to this aside from the R's.

I think it helpful if you and Madeline offer a blow-by-blow involving YOUR "suspects" too. It will be helpful for RDI to see the other aspect from another point of view. As Whitefang has asked RDI to put themselves in the mind of the Rs, so to speak, try to put yourself behind any motives and actions that you feel belong to the suspects you have in mind.

 

[madeleine]

I think it helpful if you and Madeline offer a blow-by-blow involving YOUR "suspects" too. It will be helpful for RDI to see the other aspect from another point of view.

No it wouldn't,I am not sure you guys are really interested and I doubt that you can look at this from another point of view.

As Whitefang has asked RDI to put themselves in the mind of the Rs, so to speak, try to put yourself behind any motives and actions that you feel belong to the suspects you have in mind.

I can't put myself in the mind of the killer because I have NO idea who it is,people were cleared recklessly because LE already "knew" who they want the killer to be and too many questions were left unanswered re too many people on the suspect list.You on the other hand can because you think you KNOW EXACTLY who did it.

 

[madeleine]

Re the fibers.
You say that parental fibers (so-called parental fibers) at the crime scene are proof that the parents are involved.
What about ALL the OTHER fibers found at the crime scene/body that haven't been sourced?Let me guess,those probably ended up there by innocent transfer right?
Why aren't we interested in all the fibers found at the crime scene,no we just pick the ones that seem to fit our theory.

 

[DeeDee249]

No it wouldn't,I am not sure you guys are really interested and I doubt that you can look at this from another point of view.



I can't put myself in the mind of the killer because I have NO idea who it is,people were cleared recklessly because LE already "knew" who they want the killer to be and too many questions were left unanswered re too many people on the suspect list.You on the other hand can because you think you KNOW EXACTLY who did it.

I am interested. And I never said I knew EXACTLY who did it. I have several theories. But I do feel the parents know what happened that night. And you also have an idea who you think did it. And I think you probably don't want to say it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Re the fibers.
You say that parental fibers (so-called parental fibers) at the crime scene are proof that the parents are involved.
What about ALL the OTHER fibers found at the crime scene/body that haven't been sourced?Let me guess,those probably ended up there by innocent transfer right?
Why aren't we interested in all the fibers found at the crime scene,no we just pick the ones that seem to fit our theory.

As I have previously posted, ALL houses are FULL of fibers. Especially from the people who live there. But the ONLY IMPORTANT fibers as far as this case were those found on the articles that were part of the CRIME- the tape, garrote knot and redresses panties. And THOSE fibers were from the clothing the parents wore the night she was killed.

 

[madeleine]

I am interested. And I never said I knew EXACTLY who did it. I have several theories. But I do feel the parents know what happened that night. And you also have an idea who you think did it. And I think you probably don't want to say it.

It's more like I wouldn't exclude X or Y from the list.I don't have enough to say I suspect X and only X because I would be lying.Here's my problem,I am not satisfied with how FW,Santa&his family,CW and JMK were investigated.
You probably think that if LE would have done a better job there would have been more evidence against the R's.Fair.I say the same thing re my suspects(maybe suspects is too much,people I have questions about).But the difference is,the R's WERE investigated,the others not.IMO.Not enough at least and it's admitted by the investigators.

 

[madeleine]

As I have previously posted, ALL houses are FULL of fibers. Especially from the people who live there. But the ONLY IMPORTANT fibers as far as this case were those found on the articles that were part of the CRIME- the tape, garrote knot and redresses panties. And THOSE fibers were from the clothing the parents wore the night she was killed.

Only important fibers in whose opinion.We don't know whether the unsourced ones are related to the crime or not,maybe they are.We don't even know how many fibers were found on the body or on the tape.We only know about the parental ones because that's what LE chose to talk about.

 

[WHITEFANG]

No it wouldn't,I am not sure you guys are really interested and I doubt that you can look at this from another point of view.



I can't put myself in the mind of the killer because I have NO idea who it is,people were cleared recklessly because LE already "knew" who they want the killer to be and too many questions were left unanswered re too many people on the suspect list.You on the other hand can because you think you KNOW EXACTLY who did it.

He was a sexual sadist, a vicious animal, a man without a conscience. A sick, twisted, perverted, creative criminal who enjoyed torture. He had a BTK mentality. He got his sexual kicks from binding, torturing and killing young kids. BTK was a dogcatcher, sunday school superintendent and a former home security installation technician. This guy is a similarly pathetic, irrelevant and living in the background, demonic punk.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Her hands weren't visible. Body was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt- like I said.

Let's draw that picture.

Patsy enters the room. She sees a lump of coverings on the floor under the Christmas tree.

She approaches the lump.

How did she know to fall down on that lump and begin crying? Or, if you prefer, why did she fall down and cry on that lump?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Her hands weren't visible. Body was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt- like I said.

Let's draw that picture.

Patsy enters the room. She sees a lump of coverings on the floor under the Christmas tree.

She approaches the lump.

How did she know to fall down on that lump and begin crying?

 

[DeeDee249]

Let's draw that picture.

Patsy enters the room. She sees a lump of coverings on the floor under the Christmas tree.

She approaches the lump.

How did she know to fall down on that lump and begin crying?

Are you kidding? "That lump" was her daughter and she knew it. It wasn't left by Santa under that tree. Since none of us were there, we don't know it the top of JB's hair was visible or if her feet were sticking out. We know her at least her face and torso, including arms, would have fit under the average afghan.

 

[DeeDee249]

Only important fibers in whose opinion.We don't know whether the unsourced ones are related to the crime or not,maybe they are.We don't even know how many fibers were found on the body or on the tape.We only know about the parental ones because that's what LE chose to talk about.

I'd think fibers found on a dead child, especially on a garrote around her neck and tape across her mouth, and blood-stained panties would be important in ANYONE's opinion. But especially to anyone investigating her murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

He was a sexual sadist, a vicious animal, a man without a conscience. A sick, twisted, perverted, creative criminal who enjoyed torture. He had a BTK mentality. He got his sexual kicks from binding, torturing and killing young kids. BTK was a dogcatcher, sunday school superintendent and a former home security installation technician. This guy is a similarly pathetic, irrelevant and living in the background, demonic punk.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Someone like you describe would not have left her covered with her blanket hidden away. They'd have left her in plain sight, and she would have been much more physically ravaged. The pedophile sadist would not do this while the parents were home, but he'd have taken her from the house, unconscious or not. A sexual sadist, especially a pedophile, would rape his victim. JB was not raped. I don't think she was tortured either. She wasn't moving when the garrote and tape were applied. There was no evidence of a struggle.

 

[MurriFlower]

Only important fibers in whose opinion.We don't know whether the unsourced ones are related to the crime or not,maybe they are.We don't even know how many fibers were found on the body or on the tape.We only know about the parental ones because that's what LE chose to talk about.

There were four (4) red fibers on the tape, consistent with the jacket PR had on amongst many unidentified fibers not sourced to anything in the house. The supposed 'panty' fibers were discussed in an interview with JR, suggesting they came from his shirt, but despite his lawyer's advice, he replied

" 8 THE WITNESS: If the question is

9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your

10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not

11 possible. I don't believe it. That is

12 ridiculous."

So he was asked and answered the question. They showed no proof that they actually had such evidence, so he wasn't obliged to answer at all really was he?

It's been stated (and I have no reason to disbelieve this) that proof of this type of evidence is not usually provided to defence counsel until charges have been laid. I think the fact that charges were not laid speaks for itself (unless you're RDI of course!) This is probably RDI's main 'evidence' together with the RN 'expert analysis' (which is just a joke really) so naturally they need to emphasise and magnify it and continually refer to the fiber evidence, if it actually exists, as if it were significant.

Regarding the four red fibres (perhaps) from PR's jacket, I think that you could imagine both JR and FW comforting PR that morning and embracing and supporting her, so transfer is quite likely, especially following the discovery of the body when FW apparently went back down and picked up the tape.

 

[DeeDee249]

There were four (4) red fibers on the tape, consistent with the jacket PR had on amongst many unidentified fibers not sourced to anything in the house. The supposed 'panty' fibers were discussed in an interview with JR, suggesting they came from his shirt, but despite his lawyer's advice, he replied

" 8 THE WITNESS: If the question is

9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your

10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not

11 possible. I don't believe it. That is

12 ridiculous."

So he was asked and answered the question. They showed no proof that they actually had such evidence, so he wasn't obliged to answer at all really was he?

It's been stated (and I have no reason to disbelieve this) that proof of this type of evidence is not usually provided to defence counsel until charges have been laid. I think the fact that charges were not laid speaks for itself (unless you're RDI of course!) This is probably RDI's main 'evidence' together with the RN 'expert analysis' (which is just a joke really) so naturally they need to emphasise and magnify it and continually refer to the fiber evidence, if it actually exists, as if it were significant.

Regarding the four red fibres (perhaps) from PR's jacket, I think that you could imagine both JR and FW comforting PR that morning and embracing and supporting her, so transfer is quite likely, especially following the discovery of the body when FW apparently went back down and picked up the tape.

He didn't "answer" it. He merely said it was ridiculous and he didn't believe it. That's not an answer.
It parallels Patsy answer when told her daughter had been sexually molested. Instead of being horrified, she became defensive and said "You show me where it says that".

 

[WHITEFANG]

Let's draw that picture.

Patsy enters the room. She sees a lump of coverings on the floor under the Christmas tree.

She approaches the lump.

How did she know to fall down on that lump and begin crying?

The lump is motionless. She had not seen it anywhere before, never near the Christmas tree. Sun streaking cold. A sickening feeling made her queasy and lightheaded. Is that Joni? She wonders. It can't be. She was taken. Why isn't she moving? That can't be my baby. Why doesn't it move?

Then what?