Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
I normally skip your posts since they are usely void of any new information. I reserve the right to inform other members where you are asking questions that were answered years ago when IDI protagonists first aired them.


This is inconsistent with you asking questions about hair, fibers, and touch-dna, they are already cataloged on websleuths.


Thats what websleuths is here for, to allow speculation and opinion on the stuff we do not know about regarding the JonBenet case, not to recycle old intruder myths and misrepresent the forensic evidence.

.

If websleuths is here to “to allow speculation and opinion on the stuff we do not know about” than I am in the right place; because we do not know the source for the trace evidence (fibers, hairs, and DNA) being discussed.
Your opinion and the speculation of posters and others is not evidence, and is not fact.

The fact is that there is unsourced – this means of unknown origin – trace evidence that was found in incriminating locations. That is a fact. The facts are not altered by your denials. Your speculation and opinion doesn’t change the fact.

But, carry on...

...
AK

 

[Anti-K]

Here's an interesting excerpt about PR and her fur garments (I sure do post a lot of excerpts, don't I? :blushing:

From JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas:
"As often happens when detectives start kicking around seemingly unrelated items, we figured out that Patsy's fur boots might be a possible source for a beaver hair the FBI lab had identified on the sticky side of the tape that had been across JonBenet's mouth. It could even have been a case-breaking discovery, and we should have been off and running with search warrants in hand to get those boots. But the DA's office once again stopped us in our tracks by shrugging their shoulders and declining to proceed with a warrant.

"When Detective Trujillo mentioned that Patsy had worn a pair of fur boots at her latest handwriting appearance, he sparked my recollection that Melinda Ramsey's boyfriend, Stewart Long, had told me that when he arrived at the house on December 26, Patsy was standing out in front, wearing a fur coat.

"Despite our repeated explanations during the rest of my association with the case, the DA's office never pursued a search warrant for the fur coat or boots. To me, it was inexplicable."

Ha! I just read this exact same quote earlier this morning.

So, nothing here about Mrs Ramsey owning BEAVER boots, or coats. Just fur.

I am a little curious about something. Are we to believe that while investigators had possession of the house they failed to check out anything that was made of fur? Would they have needed a specific warrant for that?

The search warrant did specify (quote): “...trace material of every kind such as clothing, fibers, hair, body fluids, latent prints and the objects on which they are found...”
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

Ha! I just read this exact same quote earlier this morning.

So, nothing here about Mrs Ramsey owning BEAVER boots, or coats. Just fur.

I am a little curious about something. Are we to believe that while investigators had possession of the house they failed to check out anything that was made of fur? Would they have needed a specific warrant for that?

The search warrant did specify (quote): “...trace material of every kind such as clothing, fibers, hair, body fluids, latent prints and the objects on which they are found...”
...

AK

Well, I never wrote that the excerpts explained the boots made of beaver hair, just PR's fur garments in general. Sorry for any confusion.

BBM: It's possible none of the articles of clothing containing fur belonging to PR were actually in the house/her closet. It sounds to me like she was wearing many, if not all, of her fur garments when she left 755 15th Street on December 26th. The search warrant stated only that LE searched the premises, not the person/s described in the warrant (the Ramseys). Perhaps that's something else the DA would not allow.

 

[Anti-K]

Well, I never wrote that the excerpts explained the boots made of beaver hair, just PR's fur garments in general. Sorry for any confusion.

BBM: It's possible none of the articles of clothing containing fur belonging to PR were actually in the house/her closet. It sounds to me like she was wearing many, if not all, of her fur garments when she left 755 15th Street on December 26th. The search warrant stated only that LE searched the premises, not the person/s described in the warrant (the Ramseys). Perhaps that's something else the DA would not allow.

You think she was wearing many, if not all of her fur garments when she left the house? Really? How many do you think she owned?
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

You think she was wearing many, if not all of her fur garments when she left the house? Really? How many do you think she owned?
...

AK

My wording may have been a bit off there. I think she wore her fur coat and fur boots when she left the house, since those are the only ones I've heard about.

 

[BBB167893]

Four fibers on the tape from one of the people who lived in the house are (according to you), totally unable to have either floated, or transferred from another known to be in close proximity to the jacket who were both known to have handled the tape, or even had been adhering to a blanket from the previous night?

However, you are able to accept that fibers from random people’s clothing can enter the home, in vast numbers, make their way into the furthest corner of the basement and into the wine cellar (through a closed door) and stick themselves to the underside of the tape?

And you accuse me of making up stupid stories to explain those fibers?

I really do need to give my head a shake when I read this stuff.

Leaving aside any urge to make a PERSONAL comment, you just triggered something in my mind, rex. I said a while back that I didn't think there was any leftover tape to get rid of. Here's what I mean: what if Henry Lee is right? What if the tape had been used before?

 

[BBB167893]

Anyone who says that the totality of the evidence is RDI, or who wished to use the “totality” of the evidence to present a case of RDI is ignoring them.

Anyone who DENIES that the totality is RDI is doing plenty of ignoring. Not my fault if some people can't handle the truth.

These items COULD have an innocent explanation but despite effort none had been found. Despite effort. That’s key. Despite effort.

You mean like how no intruder has been found, despite effort?

 

[BBB167893]

incriminating places + known inconsistency = SD doesn’t understand that correlation isn’t causation.

Don't talk to ME about not understanding things, Anti-K. 2 + 2 still equals 4, no matter what sophistry is employed.

If Mrs Ramsey can transfer unsourced fibers, than an intruder can transfer Mrs Ramsey’s fibers. Because Ramsey fibers are all over the Ramsey house and in greater number or more numerous places than unsourced fibers. Because of this, it may even be likely that an intruder would transfer unsourced + Ramsey fibers then a Ramsey would transfer unsourced + Ramsey fibers.

Anti-K, my whole point was to answer precisely this line of thinking. Even if your assertion is right, and I'm big enough to admit that it could be, the game changes when you figure in Patsy's failed attempt to explain them. The case itself is like that.

You’re only taking note of the fibers (and, evidence) that supports your position.

Ugh. Spare me, all right? Look, you can argue any single piece of the evidence until the proverbial cows come home, but when ALL the pieces are added up, it only points one way. That's what the FBI told the cops, so it's not like I just made it up.

 

[BBB167893]

I’m demonstrating what right now? That investigators put effort into identifying or sourcing meaningful things? Nonsense. You’re just saying that.

The HELL I am! Even if investigators have reason to believe something is meaningless, they'll still try to run it down specifically because the suspect's defenders will try to make something out of it (like you're doing now, thus the demonstration). Have you read ST's book recently, Anti-K? It lists NUMEROUS times where the cops ran down leads that they knew were bulls**t.

Investigators only investigate things that have the potential to be meaningful.

Sure they do.

This is so simple. You can understand it when the fiber fits your belief, but all semblance of reason fails you when the fiber does not fit your belief. The same reason and logic applies across the board.

MY reasoning is just fine. Just because SOME people can't--or won't--understand it does NOT make it wrong.

Even if RDI is true, the rationale is heavily flawed.

Even if it is, odds are on my side. I have a tendency to be right about these things, Anti-k. Just ask Roy23. I'm 2 for 2 (with him, at least). It may not be scientific, but it's damn sure effective.

 

[inspector rex]

Leaving aside any urge to make a PERSONAL comment,

I should hope so, as my comment was not in response to your post (or was it?)

you just triggered something in my mind, rex. I said a while back that I didn't think there was any leftover tape to get rid of. Here's what I mean: what if Henry Lee is right? What if the tape had been used before?

OMG, you aren't going to trot that doll out again I hope?

But, you just triggered something in my mind.
If the tape had been used before as you suggest, the fibers attributed to Patsy's clothes could have been picked up anywhere!

I'm thinking that the lab report was unable to identify with 100% accuracy (or even 99% LOL) that they had definitely come from Patsy's clothes.
In which case, they were simply 'consistent' with the red fiber in her black/red/grey jacket.
It also explains to me why there were no black and grey fibers also present anywhere.

Then we have a situation where they could have come from the environment that the tape had been in prior to it being taken to the Ramsey house.

You may well have just identified a source of IDI evidence. Thanks SD!!

 

[BBB167893]

You and Dave and almost ALL of RDI have locked yourselves into RDI. You all believe it with conviction. Virtually, no doubts.

I don't think that's what he meant. He said "a suspect." There's a difference between believing that "the Ramseys" did it and believing WHICH Ramsey did which action.

And, by your own admission (during the saliva discussion), you use this theory, this belief, to determine the value and meaning of evidence. This is just a fact. We shouldn’t have to argue over it.

For my money, we shouldn't HAVE to argue about a LOT of things. Just to provide some perspective, this current conversation got started when CherCher said that, and forgive me if I don't get every single syllable of this exactly right, that the fiber evidence against the Rs would have convicted anyone else. I really don't see how you can argue with that. Plenty of killers have gone to prison, some to death row, on LESS than what the cops gathered against the Rs. Now, whether you think that's justice or injustice, you can make that argument. But let's not kid ourselves.

 

[BBB167893]

I completely agree with you that the hairs “don't prove either RDI or IDI.” I’ll add to that the fibers and the DNA. However, this trace evidence found in incriminating locations does support the argument that an unknown person committed this crime. Doesn’t prove it. But, if we could identify this person, this trace evidence could connect him to it.

What if it doesn't? I'm serious. For the sake of argument, let's say you got someone who looked good for it. But if the DNA didn't match, you'd have to let him go. At this point, IDI's put too much stock behind the DNA to just turn around and say, "well, it's not really important. It was just an investigative lead."

And I'm not just talking out my nether regions on that, either. That very scenario is what happened with JMK. And they TRIED--or, more accurately, considered--trying to backpedal on the DNA with him, but didn't for exactly the reasons I just provided.

 

[BBB167893]

Patsy's sister was accompanied by a police officer. Do you honestly think they would let her take out evidence?

How did they KNOW at that point what was evidence and what wasn't?

Fleet White took Burke to his place, so maybe he would have noticed a backpack full of the missing evidence?

You're saying that Fleet White would have searched Burke? :facepalm:

Patsy and John weren't even able to take a change of clothes with them when they left, how did they take any evidence?

Ever heard of pockets?

Not sure what you mean? They obviously did find them. Who are you saying found them then if it wasn't the cops?

Were it not for my "faulty" memory, I recall they were given to the police by the Rs in 2000.

 

[BBB167893]

I should hope so, as my comment was not in response to your post (or was it?)

I didn't know I needed an engraved invitation. I had an idea and wanted to present it. Isn't that why we're here?

OMG, you aren't going to trot that doll out again I hope?

So sorry to disappoint you, rex! That's what I mean, all right.

But, you just triggered something in my mind.
If the tape had been used before as you suggest, the fibers attributed to Patsy's clothes could have been picked up anywhere!

I'm thinking that the lab report was unable to identify with 100% accuracy (or even 99% LOL) that they had definitely come from Patsy's clothes.
In which case, they were simply 'consistent' with the red fiber in her black/red/grey jacket.
It also explains to me why there were no black and grey fibers also present anywhere.

Then we have a situation where they could have come from the environment that the tape had been in prior to it being taken to the Ramsey house.

You may well have just identified a source of IDI evidence. Thanks SD!!

You're NOT welcome!

 

[inspector rex]

How did they KNOW at that point what was evidence and what wasn't?

You're kidding, right?

You're saying that Fleet White would have searched Burke?

:

Well, the poor kid would have been weighed down with all the evidence (that has disappeared from the crime scene), so I'm sure Fleet would have noticed.
Heck, he probably needed to lift it into the car for him!

Ever heard of pockets?

Ok, bulging pockets.
No one noticed.
Nor did anyone notice them going around the house collecting the stuff.
BTW, how were they to know what trace evidence would be found and therefore what they should take?
I reckon, to be safe, they probably should have packed a couple of suitcases!

Were it not for my "faulty" memory, I recall they were given to the police by the Rs in 2000.

That was the black cotton shirt and Patsy's black/grey/red jacket and the other clothes they think they wore that night.
Why would they give a pack of unworn panties to the cops if it was incriminating? (Remember, according to RDI they changed her into them for some reason).
Where were the panties between 1996 and 2000?

 

[Anti-K]

Anyone who DENIES that the totality is RDI is doing plenty of ignoring. Not my fault if some people can't handle the truth.



You mean like how no intruder has been found, despite effort?

Even if RDI is true, exculpatory evidence exists. Ask your buddy Kane. On one hand, he said, but, on the other hand... ; Garnett told us that the evidence was equivocal, pointing in both directions. But, we don’t need them to understand this. We simply need to look at the evidence.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Don't talk to ME about not understanding things, Anti-K. 2 + 2 still equals 4, no matter what sophistry is employed.



Anti-K, my whole point was to answer precisely this line of thinking. Even if your assertion is right, and I'm big enough to admit that it could be, the game changes when you figure in Patsy's failed attempt to explain them. The case itself is like that.



Ugh. Spare me, all right? Look, you can argue any single piece of the evidence until the proverbial cows come home, but when ALL the pieces are added up, it only points one way. That's what the FBI told the cops, so it's not like I just made it up.

There is no reason to believe that Mrs Ramsey would know how her fibers got where ever they got.

Just curious: Mrs Ramsey asphyxiates, etc her critically injured child. For some reason she is wearing her jacket and (not a fact) beaver boots at one o’clock in the morning. I guess the basement was cold. Anyway, now she’s told that her fibers have been found in incriminating locations and are connecting her to the crime. Why doesn’t she say, sure, I was all over that room with my jacket on. Many times. And, oh yeah, I had my jacket on that time I did this or that or whatever with the paint tote.
.

I don’t believe your FBI claim.
...

AK

 

[BoldBear]

I'm sorry, but repurposed duct tape is not a far-fetched idea. The rope coming from another source isn't crazy either. This was Christmas. Packages coming in, (maybe shipped in) opened and wrapped. It's unnecessary to think that an intruder had to bring them into the house. He could have just pulled them out of a trash bin. My household generated huge amounts of trash during the Christmas holidays. Rope and duct tape wouldn't be a mystery by any stretch of the imagination. In that case, there would have been no need to remove them from the house.

 

[Anti-K]

What if it doesn't? I'm serious. For the sake of argument, let's say you got someone who looked good for it. But if the DNA didn't match, you'd have to let him go. At this point, IDI's put too much stock behind the DNA to just turn around and say, "well, it's not really important. It was just an investigative lead."

And I'm not just talking out my nether regions on that, either. That very scenario is what happened with JMK. And they TRIED--or, more accurately, considered--trying to backpedal on the DNA with him, but didn't for exactly the reasons I just provided.

The CODIS sample is exculpatory for everyone that it does not match.

BPD has used the DNA to eliminate 200+ people, so far. You know how these people were eliminated? Because they didn’t match. The DNA eliminated them.

For some (un)reason RDI are okay with the DNA eliminating people, unless those people are Ramseys.
...

AK

 

[BoldBear]

The CODIS sample is exculpatory for everyone that it does not match.

BPD has used the DNA to eliminate 200+ people, so far. You know how these people were eliminated? Because they didn’t match. The DNA eliminated them.

For some (un)reason RDI are okay with the DNA eliminating people, unless those people are Ramseys.
...

AK

Anti-K,

I'm confused. You posted a good fact, but I don't see it as a response to what Dave said.