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

[icedtea4me]

How would the police know that Patsy turned in the same make of the red sweater she wore that night?

 

[UKGuy]

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,
BBM: by definition the Ramsey's are already excluded, this is the basis of Lacy's logic. This assumes the touch-dna found on JonBenet's size-12's is that of her killer, patently an assumption not guided by informed reasoning, possibly by more pecuniary pursuits, presumably you are another IDI clothing yourself in the rhetoric of rational thought?

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

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



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!!

BBM: I personally don't believe the tape was used before December 25th/26th (especially by PR while wearing her red Christmas jacket). SuperDave never said the tape was anywhere but the Ramsey house when being used, just that he believed it may have been used before. Either way, PR's receipt from McGuckin's Hardware casts serious doubt that an intruder brought the duct tape.

 

[BOESP]

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

There probably is evidence that carries less weight (I've not heard of any exculpatory evidence as of yet; the unsourced DNA doesn't exclude them as suspects; same with the unsourced fibers).

People use Carne's decision but don't usually mention that it was not a criminal case about who killed JonBenet. It was a civil case to determine whether or not the Ramseys had defamed a person-of-interest. Carnes did not hear much of the evidence concerning JonBenet's death and it was held in Atlanta (which in any criminal case would likely have meant a change of venue).

The Grand Jury heard enough evidence to ask for an indictment.

Anyone interested can search here or at Forums For Justice and find out lots of information and get answers.

 

[BOESP]

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

Unless the powers that be have proven the unknown DNA belonged to the killer then, no, it is not exculpatory evidence toward the Ramseys.

We can agree to disagree in advance.

 

[OliviaG1996]

How would the police know that Patsy turned in the same make of the red sweater she wore that night?

The Ramseys' word that it was the same sweater was good enough for the DA as usual, most likely.

 

[inspector rex]

How would the police know that Patsy turned in the same make of the red sweater she wore that night?

Well, they know because the four red fibers found on the tape were "consistent" with the red fiber of the jacket!

 

[inspector rex]

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."

I think it's a mistake to take ST's book as some kind of reference material on the murder.
Thomas himself, in his sworn deposition, contradicts much of what he wrote.

"9 What I'm asking you is do you know if there

10 was ever any forensic evidence indicating that

11 any article of clothing that Patsy wore was

12 found as a particle in that panty area of

13 JonBenet?

14 A. No, I am unaware of any forensic

15 or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing

16 to the victim's under clothing or underwear.

17 Q. Do you know if there was any

18 forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing

19 at all besides the duct tape area on

20 JonBenet?

21 A. As we sit here now, no, I don't

22 recollect any other fiber evidence, other than

23 what we have discussed linking the mother to

24 JonBenet. "

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

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

Sorry, I don’t know how to respond as I don’t understand why you’re confused.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
BBM: by definition the Ramsey's are already excluded, this is the basis of Lacy's logic. This assumes the touch-dna found on JonBenet's size-12's is that of her killer, patently an assumption not guided by informed reasoning, possibly by more pecuniary pursuits, presumably you are another IDI clothing yourself in the rhetoric of rational thought?

.

I don’t mind the criticism and questions but sometimes it’s hard to take you seriously as you often don’t seem to have fully read, or understand, what I post. For example, I posted on the CODIS sample. You comment on the tDNA. Why? I didn’t say anything about it.

But, I should point out that the tDNA was not on the panties, it was on the leggings.

I don’t really car to get caught up in a discussion of Lacey and her reasoning, but she claimed that the tDNA added “significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.” And, she claimed “full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

There probably is evidence that carries less weight (I've not heard of any exculpatory evidence as of yet; the unsourced DNA doesn't exclude them as suspects; same with the unsourced fibers).

People use Carne's decision but don't usually mention that it was not a criminal case about who killed JonBenet. It was a civil case to determine whether or not the Ramseys had defamed a person-of-interest. Carnes did not hear much of the evidence concerning JonBenet's death and it was held in Atlanta (which in any criminal case would likely have meant a change of venue).

The Grand Jury heard enough evidence to ask for an indictment.

Anyone interested can search here or at Forums For Justice and find out lots of information and get answers.

Exculpatory evidence is simply evidence in a person’s favor. It doesn’t prove their innocence, but can go towards reasonable doubt. The unsourced trace evidence found in incriminating locations is exculpatory. That is a factual statement. The family history, behavioral evidence; that is all exculpatory. They might be guilty anyway, but the exculpatory evidence still exists.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Unless the powers that be have proven the unknown DNA belonged to the killer then, no, it is not exculpatory evidence toward the Ramseys.

We can agree to disagree in advance.

You’re completely wrong about this.

Trace evidence found in incriminating locations is PRESUMED – not assumed, but presumed – to be evidence transferred during the commission of a crime.

That’s why they look for trace evidence in those locations.

That’s fundamental, it’s basic; it’s the whole premise around which everything else revolves.

Presumption is that which must be disproved, it is that which is generally accepted as being true because in most cases, it is. Presumption is “assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.”

The unsourced trace evidence, DNA included, is exculpatory because it is evidence in the Ramsey’s favor; it raises the possibility that someone else was involved in this crime. The fact that it is unsourced does not diminish that possibility.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

I think it's a mistake to take ST's book as some kind of reference material on the murder.
Thomas himself, in his sworn deposition, contradicts much of what he wrote.

"9 What I'm asking you is do you know if there

10 was ever any forensic evidence indicating that

11 any article of clothing that Patsy wore was

12 found as a particle in that panty area of

13 JonBenet?

14 A. No, I am unaware of any forensic

15 or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing

16 to the victim's under clothing or underwear.

17 Q. Do you know if there was any

18 forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing

19 at all besides the duct tape area on

20 JonBenet?

21 A. As we sit here now, no, I don't

22 recollect any other fiber evidence, other than

23 what we have discussed linking the mother to

24 JonBenet. "

Steve Thomas is discussing, "fiber evidence other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet". He's also speaking about fibers in JonBenet's "under clothing and/or underwear". I haven't seen anyone here stating Patsy's fibers were in JonBenet's underwear or under clothing, only black fibers consistent with one of John Ramsey's shirts. I don't understand how Steve Thomas contradicted himself.

By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?

 

[Anti-K]

Steve Thomas is discussing, "fiber evidence other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet". He's also speaking about fibers in JonBenet's "under clothing and/or underwear". I haven't seen anyone here stating Patsy's fibers were in JonBenet's underwear or under clothing, only black fibers consistent with one of John Ramsey's shirts. I don't understand how Steve Thomas contradicted himself.

By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?

I know this wasn’t meant for me; but, why should one infer the other? Maybe we should take what ALL parties had to say with “a grain of salt.”
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

I know this wasn’t meant for me; but, why should one infer the other? Maybe we should take what ALL parties had to say with “a grain of salt.”
...

AK

I know we should. That's what I'm saying. As a matter of fact, here's part of one of my previous posts:

I think all books/articles should be taken into consideration.

 

[inspector rex]

Steve Thomas is discussing, "fiber evidence other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet". He's also speaking about fibers in JonBenet's "under clothing and/or underwear". I haven't seen anyone here stating Patsy's fibers were in JonBenet's underwear or under clothing, only black fibers consistent with one of John Ramsey's shirts. I don't understand how Steve Thomas contradicted himself.

Yes, ST was asked previously about the four red fibers found on the duct tape.


"18 Q. I think I understand you. The

19 red fibers, we're talking about the red

20 fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones

21 that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That were consistent or a likely

24 match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?

25 A. Yes.

251

1 Q. That was the red and black and

2 gray jacket that she was wearing?

3 A. I've always heard it referred to

4 as a red and black jacket, yes.

5 Q. It's the one in the photograph,

6 though, that was produced where they went

7 back a year afterwards and tried to find what

8 they were wearing, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that

11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,

12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket

13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?

14 A. Until you told me that right now,

15 no.

16 Q. So I assume that no request, that

17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites

18 to give articles of clothing with respect to

19 this investigation?

20 A. They may have been asked to give

21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that

23 were found on the duct tape that were said

24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy

25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

252

1 A. It's my understanding that the

2 four fibers were red in color. "

By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?

Sadly, having something in print form does not make it any more correct than what you read on the forums.
ST himself when under oath, was forced to admit that much of what he wrote in support of his theory about the Ramseys was either incorrect or unable to be verified and much of it came by word of mouth third or fourth hand.

As regards the Bonita Papers, when it is quoted from, I just shake my head.
What we have is (and I still don't have an answer to my question of where it was sourced from) apparently:
1. A Secretary (whose identify we cannot confirm) in a legal office's own interpretation of what Detectives said and of the evidence, via
2. Her nephew, (whose name we don't even know) who supposedly gave the information to a tabloid. We don't know if it was modified/tampered with first, via
3. A tabloid (that has not been identified) published these papers, but we do not know how much may have been re-written/modified/tampered with first, via
4. Internet poster (Spade) whose identity we do not know and nor do we know if any of the points 1-3 are correct except on the word of 'Spade'.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether it has any more truth to it than the opinions of posters that you read here, who state things as facts that are nothing more than their own theories.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Yes, ST was asked previously about the four red fibers found on the duct tape.


"18 Q. I think I understand you. The

19 red fibers, we're talking about the red

20 fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones

21 that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That were consistent or a likely

24 match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?

25 A. Yes.

251

1 Q. That was the red and black and

2 gray jacket that she was wearing?

3 A. I've always heard it referred to

4 as a red and black jacket, yes.

5 Q. It's the one in the photograph,

6 though, that was produced where they went

7 back a year afterwards and tried to find what

8 they were wearing, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that

11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,

12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket

13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?

14 A. Until you told me that right now,

15 no.

16 Q. So I assume that no request, that

17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites

18 to give articles of clothing with respect to

19 this investigation?

20 A. They may have been asked to give

21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that

23 were found on the duct tape that were said

24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy

25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

252

1 A. It's my understanding that the

2 four fibers were red in color. "



Sadly, having something in print form does not make it any more correct than what you read on the forums.
ST himself when under oath, was forced to admit that much of what he wrote in support of his theory about the Ramseys was either incorrect or unable to be verified and much of it came by word of mouth third or fourth hand.

As regards the Bonita Papers, when it is quoted from, I just shake my head.
What we have is (and I still don't have an answer to my question of where it was sourced from) apparently:
1. A Secretary (whose identify we cannot confirm) in a legal office's own interpretation of what Detectives said and of the evidence, via
2. Her nephew, (whose name we don't even know) who supposedly gave the information to a tabloid. We don't know if it was modified/tampered with first, via
3. A tabloid (that has not been identified) published these papers, but we do not know how much may have been re-written/modified/tampered with first, via
4. Internet poster (Spade) whose identity we do not know and nor do we know if any of the points 1-3 are correct except on the word of 'Spade'.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether it has any more truth to it than the opinions of posters that you read here, who state things as facts that are nothing more than their own theories.

BBM: Can you give me an example of something written in Steve Thomas's book that was proven incorrect, please? And by whom was it proved incorrect by?

 

[BBB167893]

You're kidding, right?

No, I am most assuredly NOT kidding. Even leaving aside the DA's edict to treat them with kid gloves, it was, I think, two days later. As far as the police knew, the crime scene was in the basement. Pam should NEVER have been allowed to take a single thing.

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!

Now I think YOU'RE kidding. What's this "weighed down" stuff? Just how much was supposed to have been taken?

Ok, bulging pockets.
No one noticed.

Why would they be bulging?

Nor did anyone notice them going around the house collecting the
stuff.

Since no one noticed where JR went for quite a while, it's not beyond possibility. That assumes, of course, that they weren't already carrying them. Of course, THAT assumes that they hadn't been disposed of already. And THAT assumes that there was any to dispose of.

BTW, how were they to know what trace evidence would be found and therefore what they should take?

Whether or not they KNEW is one thing. But I'm sure a few things would have stood out. Even in the pre-CSI era, most people knew SOME about forensics.

Not that it matters. You asked how they could have done it. I gave you some possibilities.

That was the black cotton shirt and Patsy's black/grey/red jacket and the other clothes they think they wore that night.

No, it wasn't. I guess I'm not the only one with memory "issues!"

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).

To look cooperative? Don't forget: Ellis Armistead quit right around that time because they did things he didn't agree with.

Where were the panties between 1996 and 2000?

With them, if memory serves.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, ST was asked previously about the four red fibers found on the duct tape.


"18 Q. I think I understand you. The

19 red fibers, we're talking about the red

20 fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones

21 that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That were consistent or a likely

24 match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?

25 A. Yes.

251

1 Q. That was the red and black and

2 gray jacket that she was wearing?

3 A. I've always heard it referred to

4 as a red and black jacket, yes.

5 Q. It's the one in the photograph,

6 though, that was produced where they went

7 back a year afterwards and tried to find what

8 they were wearing, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that

11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,

12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket

13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?

14 A. Until you told me that right now,

15 no.

16 Q. So I assume that no request, that

17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites

18 to give articles of clothing with respect to

19 this investigation?

20 A. They may have been asked to give

21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that

23 were found on the duct tape that were said

24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy

25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

252

1 A. It's my understanding that the

2 four fibers were red in color. "



Sadly, having something in print form does not make it any more correct than what you read on the forums.
ST himself when under oath, was forced to admit that much of what he wrote in support of his theory about the Ramseys was either incorrect or unable to be verified and much of it came by word of mouth third or fourth hand.

As regards the Bonita Papers, when it is quoted from, I just shake my head.
What we have is (and I still don't have an answer to my question of where it was sourced from) apparently:
1. A Secretary (whose identify we cannot confirm) in a legal office's own interpretation of what Detectives said and of the evidence, via
2. Her nephew, (whose name we don't even know) who supposedly gave the information to a tabloid. We don't know if it was modified/tampered with first, via
3. A tabloid (that has not been identified) published these papers, but we do not know how much may have been re-written/modified/tampered with first, via
4. Internet poster (Spade) whose identity we do not know and nor do we know if any of the points 1-3 are correct except on the word of 'Spade'.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether it has any more truth to it than the opinions of posters that you read here, who state things as facts that are nothing more than their own theories.

Bonita papers
Okay, I usually ignore this subject. But, here’s the story as I remember it. Vaguely, and I hope not too incorrectly.

BPD was to make a presentation to the DA’s office as a step towards asking for the convening of a Grand Jury.

BPD hired a group of lawyers to aid them in the presentation. It was their Dream Team. One of the lawyers was Daniel Hoffman. Bonita was a secretary or something employed by Hoffman (or, his firm?).Supposedly, Bonita had access to case files, and – once again, as I remember it – sat in on meetings and took notes. After that, who knows for sure?
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Even if RDI is true, exculpatory evidence exists.

That's true of ANY case, Anti-K. That's the point I've tried to make these many years.

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.

As experienced prosecutors (at least Kane is), I imagine they'd already know.

But, we don’t need them to understand this. We simply need to look at the evidence.

Ain't it the truth.