Learn Something New Every Day

[narlacat]

Nothing makes me go hmmm..

As a little blondie haired kid ... every summer my hair summer sunned bleached..

By Dec?? I had roots from being inside during the cold months.

We all know Patsy dyed/highlighted/coloured her daughters hair, the sun had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Nova]

Hey Nova - it's been years!

How kind of you to remember me, Twi! Of course I remember you and your generous instruction of the rest of us. I lurk here from time to time but, until today, there didn't seem to be anything new.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe PR's death would keep anyone from introducing the RN as evidence of a coverup.

 

[twilight]

No, I doubt it would Nova. I don't personally think there will ever be a trial though - key players now being dead and all.

And it's good to see familiar posters like yourself. I liked this forum better back in the good ole days! Remember Octic? Boy the stories that lurk beneath the surface of forums. How may times have Websleuths morphed since those good ole days? (the news about PR pulled me out of the woodwork as well ... I don't seem to be able to find much time for this anymore).

 

[Voice of Reason]

VOR,

This is the part I don't understand. If it is taped interviews,than it wouldn't be hearsay.Hearsay is more like second hand information. If the person is on a taped interview,that is not second hand information ...why could it not be used in a trial,after one's death?

It is still hearsay, because they are "out-of-court" statements. Hearsay, as a general matter, is not admissible because it is typically less reliable than firsthand statements made under oath. So while these are technically "firsthand" statements, the declarant (i.e., Patsy) is not available for cross-examination, so there is no way to gage the reliability of her statements or to poke holes in her story through cross-examination.

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is an area of the law that many have a difficult time wrapping their head around, so hopefully, I'm explaining it well. Feel free to ask any other questions. I'll do my best to explain it.

 

[Voice of Reason]

twilight,

Thanks for bringing it back to the topic.
Good question! I tend to think the ransom note,would not be under this catagory,because it is actually part of the crime scene.

My thinking is,no one knows with 100% certainty who wrote the note,so why would it be inadmissible because Patsy died?

Another fine (yet confusing) point of the law surrounding hearsay: statements are only considered hearsay if they are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, the ransom note could be admitted at any trial regardless of who wrote it to show any number of things aside from the truth of what it actually states.

For example, the note could be admitted to show that JR and PR indeed found a ransom note that morning. It could be used to show that the note traumatized JR and PR. The only thing it cannot be used to show is that the statements made in it are actually true (unless of course the author is "available" to testify). And since most think the note is entirely bogus, I can't imagine why an attorney would try to admit the ransom note to prove the truth of the statements within.

To use a simpler example: red car hits John Doe and police arrive. John Doe tells police, "the red car ran the light." If John Doe dies before trial, this statement cannot be used at trial, because it is offered to prove that the red car ran the light. This is a classic example of hearsay. On the other hand, if John Doe's statement is used to show that he was conscious after the accident, or that he spoke English, or anything other than the fact that "the red car ran the light," it is no longer considered hearsay. Hope this makes sense.

 

[sissi]

Camper, the clothes, she put on the same clothes!
Amraan, yep, I'm enjoying the absolutely white hair around the face of our five year old, and the blonde streaks throughout. No help, just a bit of daily chlorine and sun. My daughter puts sunscreen on her hair to keep it from bleaching out because she has chosen a dark blonde "color" and doesn't want it to bleach light. Those pageant pics suggest the spray and extensions or perhaps a fall, even with teasing (ratting) I doubt that Jonbenet "owned" that much hair.

 

[ellen13]

[QUOTE=UKGuy]ellen13,

Its not so much damning, more it links her to the staged crime scene.

Since the fibers are only consistent, its not claimed they are a direct match.

I have mentioned before it might help to split the staging into separate stages e.g the top and lower halves of her body.

Some people consider the manner in which she was wiped down to be something a woman might do.

Then again why the size-12's?

Her upper halve is staged to appear as if she is dressed in her day-clothes, even her hair is done up.

Personally I see more than one set of hands at work here, that is the ransom note and probable dumping of JonBenet's corpse was vetoed, so she was re-staged ...



.[/QUOTE]UK guy,
you and I are saying the same thing- when i said damning, i meant it alluding to her involvement in the coverup. even if the red fibers are consistent, which doesn't mean a perfect match, who paints in a red sweater anyway. it seems people would paint in something like a smock or apron or something they didn't care about.

 

[capps]

VOR,

That helped very much,thank you!
Now,if I'm understanding correctly,all the statements that Patsy made about being the first to awake,and finding the ranson note on the stairs,and any thing else she may have said,up until the time John joined her,would be moot. Correct?

Do courts pick and choose when statements can be admissible? One that comes to mind ... in the OJ trial,Nicole's 911 tape was admissible,why so? Is it because she was the victim? Or am I way off base here?

 

[ellen13]

Camper, the clothes, she put on the same clothes!
Amraan, yep, I'm enjoying the absolutely white hair around the face of our five year old, and the blonde streaks throughout. No help, just a bit of daily chlorine and sun. My daughter puts sunscreen on her hair to keep it from bleaching out because she has chosen a dark blonde "color" and doesn't want it to bleach light. Those pageant pics suggest the spray and extensions or perhaps a fall, even with teasing (ratting) I doubt that Jonbenet "owned" that much hair.

camper,
oh, it's amazing how big one can get their hair with curlers, teasing, and hairspray-trust me-a true child of the 80's. i will say this, my hair was that blonde as a child naturally and didn't turn brown (or dish water blonde until my teens). i'm not trying to argue with you, just saying it's possible. However, idon't put anything past what patsy would have done to jbr' hair.

 

[blueclouds]

I'm sure Patsy herself said whoever wrote the note killed JonBenet.

CLEARLY....
NARLCAT, we agree on this point hon. :innocent:

 

[narlacat]

I doubt it Blueclouds.
I think Patsy wrote the note.

 

[Voice of Reason]

VOR,

That helped very much,thank you!
Now,if I'm understanding correctly,all the statements that Patsy made about being the first to awake,and finding the ranson note on the stairs,and any thing else she may have said,up until the time John joined her,would be moot. Correct?

Well, you have to wait until a trial when an attorney tries to admit statements to determine if they are admissible. As I said before, it all depends on what the statements are being used to prove. However, the examples you cited really couldn't be used to prove much aside from their truth (first awake, found the note, etc.), so in all likelihood, they would be inadmissible.

Do courts pick and choose when statements can be admissible? One that comes to mind ... in the OJ trial,Nicole's 911 tape was admissible,why so? Is it because she was the victim? Or am I way off base here?

Again, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. 911 tapes can come in because they are what is known as "excited utterances." (Statements made following a startling event while the declarant is still startled by the event.)

And yes, courts pick and choose. First, they look at what statements are trying to prove, and if it is not the truth of the statements, they are not considered hearsay, and therefore, are admissible. If the statements are hearsay, then they look to see if they fall under an exception.

Basically, it works like this. Hearsay is generally seen as unreliable. If a statement is not offered to prove its truth, the reliability is no longer an issue. And all of the exceptions are situations in which the statements are more likely to be reliable (e.g., 911 call).

Now you've got me thinking, though. I think many of Patsy's statements could come into a trial. First, you've got her deposition. This is testimony sworn under oath with opportunity for cross, so it should be fully admissible at any trial. Then, imagine for a second that it was determined PR and JR conspired in this case. There is a hearsay exception known as "statements by co-conspirators made in furtherance of a conspiracy." While I don't think that is what happened, there are situations in which these statements could come in. And while the confrontation clause could cause problems in any criminal trial, it doesn't apply to civil trials such as wrongful death or whatever. The author of the original article in this post, just kept things very simple.

 

[RiverRat]

Nothing makes me go hmmm..

As a little blondie haired kid ... every summer my hair summer sunned bleached..

By Dec?? I had roots from being inside during the cold months.

So your mommy ran for the Miss Clairol, right?

RR

 

[Camper]

Camper, the clothes, she put on the same clothes!

---->>>WE donut know that she PUT on the same clothes. The options are:

a. She (PR)put on the same clothes
b. She (PR)still had ON the same clothes from the night before.

I personally would not have worn the SAME party clothing the following morning to fly across country for hours in a SITTING position creating wrinkles upon wrinkles in all the wrong places. I would have worn comfy clothing for a LONG trip like that in a rather physically cramped position. Thats just me, I am a Saggitarius too, BUT I like to be comfy. Party dress up clothes are fine for party time, but to be in a small airplane being a mommy would not suit me personally.

.

 

[close_enough]

RiverRat,

Thank you for your remarks, whichever words you wish to use, I consider this aspect important. There are other interpretations that can be placed upon her hair being sectioned off.

Although I already had this in mind, it was reinforced recently whilst reading Tutankhamen: The life and Death of a Boy King.

Part of the forensic analysis, which was crucial, focused on the fact he had been buried/mummified with a shaven head.

Giving it some thought I speculated the sectioned off parts were done after she was dead and not before.


.

just curious...what reason would there be to "section off" JBR's hair, after she's dead?

 

[ellen13]

against Patsy, why wasn't she charged.Presumably because there was other evidence clearing her..She is dead now so I hope you Ramsey haters will leave her alone...unless new evidence comes forward and the Boulder DA comes forward and makes a determination she likely did commit the crime.:boohoo:

dear angry wolf,
i understand it hurts you for us to speak of pr in a negative manner. there is a thread here that just discusses her life and nothing negative is said. i think you'd be happier up at that top thread. I do have a question-you presumed some evidence cleared her? what evidence cleared her completely without a shadow of a doubt? maybe i'll learn something.
regards,
ellen

 

[dottierainbow]

Thats not true. Two of my posts have been deleted. If you don't agree with the majority out goes your post.

Amy

 

[RiverRat]

Thats not true. Two of my posts have been deleted. If you don't agree with the majority out goes your post.

Amy

Oh, that explains why three of mine were zapped...............not even worthy of moving them to the Parking Lot......... :boohoo: I almost thought I was posting at the Double B...........then I remembered how much cuter the Owner of this place is and zapped myself back to reality.........which IS something I'd highly recommend! :innocent:

 

[RiverRat]

Oh, that explains why three of mine were zapped...............not even worthy of moving them to the Parking Lot......... :boohoo: I almost thought I was posting at the Double B...........then I remembered how much cuter the Owner of this place is and zapped myself back to reality.........which IS something I'd highly recommend! :innocent:

:laugh:
ReallyRatty

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Do you have a source that states those blankets originated from JonBenet's bed?

Fleet White went back to inspect the 'duct' tape ...


.

Yes Fleet did also pick up the duct tape and he left it on the blanket. I will find the source re the blanket but I don't have it with me today. It has to be in PM/PT or the Steve Thomas book.