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

[inspector rex]

You know, with all the fibers from this jacket supposedly found it’s a wonder that the jacket had anything left to it. 
...

AK

RSBM

I just find this argument about fibers supposedly consistent with the jacket she wore the previous evening being found on her daughter to be quite silly.
How can you assume them to be incriminating when Patsy had the jacket on when she helped JonBenet dress, during the evening, and when she put her to bed that night?
I don't believe they were in the paint tote or knot, as these don't seem to have been proven.
There seems to have been four red fibers consistent with the jacket (which was red/grey/white) found on the tape.
The tape was removed by John and discarded (floor/blanket?)
Later it was picked up by FW and again discarded to be stuck on the blanket where it was found.
If Patsy had the same jacket on that morning, then it is natural that either or both John and FW had hugged/comforted her at some point before the body was found.

On the other hand, unsourced fibers?? Definitely indicate that there may have been an unidentified person present. I hear there was brown cotton fibers. There was also some dark (blue?) fibers on her from an unidentified cloth which supposedly wiped her down. So these aren't just the odd fiber that may have been transferred or floated around the house, but a large number of fibers.

SuperDave: In answer to your question.
I see the dismissing of the unsourced fibers as evidence of an intruder as being treated by you in just the same way as the unsourced DNA is evidence of an intruder.
And it doesn't surprise me that you stated "What I said speaks for itself, or at least it should.",as your habit of diminishing and dismissing intruder evidence whilst amplifying and expanding RDI evidence way beyond it's importance, as simply backing your own theory.
It is expected.
It tells me you no longer have a perspective that does not include RDI.

 

[andreww]

The argument you present here is sad. Mrs Ramsey – the liar – says she never did this or that and she can’t explain how the fibers got where they were (I bet an intruder would say the same things!). And Mr Ramsey said something different. Therefore, BINGO, direct transfer! Case closed. Good grief.

Fibers don’t care. They just don’t care. They don’t care about us and they don’t care about our silly little arguments and they don’t care about how they got where ever they got or who put them there. They just float around and they hitch rides on people and things and they transfer, transfer, transfer...

Still, when they transfer to incriminating locations we need to take note.

But, we should expect Ramsey fibers to be present in the home.

Of the four locations where fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket were found only two of them should be considered incriminating: the ligature around the neck and the tape.

We know they were in the paint tote and on the wc floor. They were on the blanket, and perhaps, pre-crime, they could have even been on the victim. This increases chances for secondary (or, further) transfer, and, it is easy to see someone transferring these fibers from one or more of these locations to an incriminating location.

Compare this to the unsourced brown, cotton fibers that were found on the ligatures, the tape and the genital area.

Yes, of course, these could also be present due to innocent transfer (ALL the fibers could be present due to innocent transfer!). But, the fact that these fibers were not sourced, despite great effort, throws this into doubt.

The fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket are incriminating for the Ramseys); and, the unsourced fibers are exculpatory for the Ramseys.
...

AK

You are kidding right? You have to concede that IF the Ramseys did this crime, that they probably wore gloves right? And it would be logical to assume that those gloves would likely be one of the items that would likely have been disposed of right? You see where I'm going here right???

And to try and dismiss the importance of Patsy's fibres being all over that murder scene? Were fibres from Patsy's green jacket found on the tape? Were fibres from Patsy's blue jacket found in the tote? Were fibres from Patsy's yellow jacket found on the ligatures? Were fibres from Patsy's pure jacket found on the blanket? No, no, no and no. But the jacket that Patsy was wearing that night seems to have magic secondary transfer abilities, and of all the items in her wardrobe, only it's fibres make their way on to that duct tape.

Fibre evidence is only important IF you can match those fibres to an actual source because there are simply too many meaningless fibres lying about. You do not have to throw out the validity of Patsy's jacket fibres simply because you can't find a source for those brown fibres. They do absolutely nothing to support an intruder scenario as you and your pals might want to suggest, but more than likely point to the disposal of something that was used in the coverup of this crime. And something I might add that you would expect to be disposed of.

 

[andreww]

RSBM

I just find this argument about fibers supposedly consistent with the jacket she wore the previous evening being found on her daughter to be quite silly.
How can you assume them to be incriminating when Patsy had the jacket on when she helped JonBenet dress, during the evening, and when she put her to bed that night?
I don't believe they were in the paint tote or knot, as these don't seem to have been proven.
There seems to have been four red fibers consistent with the jacket (which was red/grey/white) found on the tape.
The tape was removed by John and discarded (floor/blanket?)
Later it was picked up by FW and again discarded to be stuck on the blanket where it was found.
If Patsy had the same jacket on that morning, then it is natural that either or both John and FW had hugged/comforted her at some point before the body was found.

On the other hand, unsourced fibers?? Definitely indicate that there may have been an unidentified person present. I hear there was brown cotton fibers. There was also some dark (blue?) fibers on her from an unidentified cloth which supposedly wiped her down. So these aren't just the odd fiber that may have been transferred or floated around the house, but a large number of fibers.

SuperDave: In answer to your question.
I see the dismissing of the unsourced fibers as evidence of an intruder as being treated by you in just the same way as the unsourced DNA is evidence of an intruder.
And it doesn't surprise me that you stated "What I said speaks for itself, or at least it should.",as your habit of diminishing and dismissing intruder evidence whilst amplifying and expanding RDI evidence way beyond it's importance, as simply backing your own theory.
It is expected.
It tells me you no longer have a perspective that does not include RDI.

BBM. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it go away. Typical IDI behaviour, trying to dismiss damning evidence while making up some stupid story to explain how those fibres happened to be there. You really believe that at that precise moment that when either John or Fleet touched that tape, that they happened to have had four of Patsy's jacket fibres on the one fingertip that would have touched the sticky surface of the tape?? Give your head a shake and try again.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it go away. Typical IDI behaviour, trying to dismiss damning evidence while making up some stupid story to explain how those fibres happened to be there. You really believe that at that precise moment that when either John or Fleet touched that tape, that they happened to have had four of Patsy's jacket fibres on the one fingertip that would have touched the sticky surface of the tape?? Give your head a shake and try again.

andreww,
ITA. Its not any one set of fibers that make the difference, but all the forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar that links directly to the Ramsey's, e.g. Paty's fibers found embedded into the knotting of the ligature/paintbrush or BR's touch-dna found on JonBenet's bloodstained pink barbie nightgown, deposited in the wine-cellar.

Those latter examples should not be there, this along with JR's fibers found on JonBenet, link all three Ramsey's to the crime-scene. This cannot be said of any IDI theory since there is no credible version available, they have all been shot down over the years.

Ask any IDI protagonist: why was JonBenet wearing clean size-12's, why was her pink nightgown in the wine-cellar, who opened the Christmas Gifts, what was a barbie doll doing in the wine-cellar?

There is absolutely zero forensic linking to anyone outside of the house, despite valiant atempts by IDI to place everyone and their dog that ever knew the R's in the frame.

When people come onto forums repeating the same stuff for years on end, well I reckon they have a name for that kind of behavior?

.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
ITA. Its not any one set of fibers that make the difference, but all the forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar that links directly to the Ramsey's, e.g. Paty's fibers found embedded into the knotting of the ligature/paintbrush or BR's touch-dna found on JonBenet's bloodstained pink barbie nightgown, deposited in the wine-cellar.

Those latter examples should not be there, this along with JR's fibers found on JonBenet, link all three Ramsey's to the crime-scene. This cannot be said of any IDI theory since there is no credible version available, they have all been shot down over the years.

Ask any IDI protagonist: why was JonBenet wearing clean size-12's, why was her pink nightgown in the wine-cellar, who opened the Christmas Gifts, what was a barbie doll doing in the wine-cellar?

There is absolutely zero forensic linking to anyone outside of the house, despite valiant atempts by IDI to place everyone and their dog that ever knew the R's in the frame.

When people come onto forums repeating the same stuff for years on end, well I reckon they have a name for that kind of behavior?

.

Fibre evidence is tricky in that there can be explanations for some of it. Burke's touch DNA on the nightgown for example could have been deposited sometime prior to the crime. How Patsy's fibres got on the nylon cord and duct tape supposedly brought by intruders is quite another story however.

 

[UKGuy]

Fibre evidence is tricky in that there can be explanations for some of it. Burke's touch DNA on the nightgown for example could have been deposited sometime prior to the crime. How Patsy's fibres got on the nylon cord and duct tape supposedly brought by intruders is quite another story however.

andreww,
BBM: of course there can. I can offer an alternative explanation for Patsy's fibers on the sticky side of the duct-tape.

The important thing to note, Kolar did when he remarked on the absence of IDI forensic evidence at the crime-scene, is that all this forensic evidence is to be found at the crime-scene, i.e. the wine-cellar, its not distributed about the house, but concentrated inside the windowless room.

Burke's touch DNA on the nightgown for example could have been deposited sometime prior to the crime.

And the bloodstain? Both items were likely deposited during the commission of the crime!

The pink nightgown should not be in the wine-cellar, why does any intruder wish to leave the nightgown here and not say upstairs in her bedroom?

What about the barbie-doll whose fingerprints or touch-dna was on it?

Point being is that there is no intruder forensic evidence linking all these items in the wine-cellar, but there is Ramsey forensic evidence, particularly to artifacts that should not not be present. This links all three remaining Ramsey's to the wine-cellar crime-scene!

.

 

[Anti-K]

You are kidding right? You have to concede that IF the Ramseys did this crime, that they probably wore gloves right? And it would be logical to assume that those gloves would likely be one of the items that would likely have been disposed of right? You see where I'm going here right???

And to try and dismiss the importance of Patsy's fibres being all over that murder scene? Were fibres from Patsy's green jacket found on the tape? Were fibres from Patsy's blue jacket found in the tote? Were fibres from Patsy's yellow jacket found on the ligatures? Were fibres from Patsy's pure jacket found on the blanket? No, no, no and no. But the jacket that Patsy was wearing that night seems to have magic secondary transfer abilities, and of all the items in her wardrobe, only it's fibres make their way on to that duct tape.

Fibre evidence is only important IF you can match those fibres to an actual source because there are simply too many meaningless fibres lying about. You do not have to throw out the validity of Patsy's jacket fibres simply because you can't find a source for those brown fibres. They do absolutely nothing to support an intruder scenario as you and your pals might want to suggest, but more than likely point to the disposal of something that was used in the coverup of this crime. And something I might add that you would expect to be disposed of.

No, I’m not kidding.

I am acknowledging that the fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket is incriminating to some degree. Is it the smoking gun that many RDI posters believe it to be? Nope. Not even close; and, I don’t think you’ll find anyone associated with the investigation making such a claim, either.

No, I don’t have to concede that, if RDI, the Ramseys probably would have worn gloves.

Yes, if the unsourced brown, cotton fibers came from gloves, than those gloves were removed from the home. By someone.

However, breaking and using the paint brush handle pretty much shows that, if RDI, the Ramseys weren’t concerned about items being traced back to them or the home; and, there is no evidence to show that they removed the gloves or any other object.

To ignore unsourced fibers simply because they have been unsourced is not reasonable. It is to ignore evidence. If they are unsourced they cannot be said to have an innocent explanation. They might, but they might not.

These unsourced are part of a body of trace evidence (fibers, hairs, DNA) found in incriminating locations that have not been sourced and that is consistent with the exact type of evidence that one should expect to find if this crime were committed by an intruder.

This is why so much effort – failed effort – has gone into trying to source these things. Because, they’re evidence and they’re evidence found in incriminating locations. They don’t put this sort of effort into trying to source or identify meaningless things. And, a belief in RDI, however strongly held, does not explain this evidence and it cannot make it go away.

So, we’re missing a source - probably a person, possibly the person responsible for this crime – for fibers, hairs, DNA, cord, tape and possibly gloves. Definitive proof of an intruder? No. Consistent with what an intruder could have left behind? Yes. Exculpatory value for the Ramseys? Yes.

People should try to take ALL the evidence into account and not just the evidence that favors their belief.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

No, I’m not kidding.

I am acknowledging that the fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket is incriminating to some degree. Is it the smoking gun that many RDI posters believe it to be? Nope. Not even close; and, I don’t think you’ll find anyone associated with the investigation making such a claim, either.

No, I don’t have to concede that, if RDI, the Ramseys probably would have worn gloves.

Yes, if the unsourced brown, cotton fibers came from gloves, than those gloves were removed from the home. By someone.

However, breaking and using the paint brush handle pretty much shows that, if RDI, the Ramseys weren’t concerned about items being traced back to them or the home; and, there is no evidence to show that they removed the gloves or any other object.

To ignore unsourced fibers simply because they have been unsourced is not reasonable. It is to ignore evidence. If they are unsourced they cannot be said to have an innocent explanation. They might, but they might not.

These unsourced are part of a body of trace evidence (fibers, hairs, DNA) found in incriminating locations that have not been sourced and that is consistent with the exact type of evidence that one should expect to find if this crime were committed by an intruder.

This is why so much effort – failed effort – has gone into trying to source these things. Because, they’re evidence and they’re evidence found in incriminating locations. They don’t put this sort of effort into trying to source or identify meaningless things. And, a belief in RDI, however strongly held, does not explain this evidence and it cannot make it go away.

So, we’re missing a source - probably a person, possibly the person responsible for this crime – for fibers, hairs, DNA, cord, tape and possibly gloves. Definitive proof of an intruder? No. Consistent with what an intruder could have left behind? Yes. Exculpatory value for the Ramseys? Yes.

People should try to take ALL the evidence into account and not just the evidence that favors their belief.
...

AK

Yes, but by your logic nobody should be charged with anything provided there are unaccounted for fibres, hairs or trace DNA found at the scene. There always will be unaccounted for evidence because we simply don't live under lab-like conditions. This case has so much that points directly at the Ramsey's yet a handful of people get hung up on stupid brown fibres that more than likely came from Patsy's mittens anyway.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
BBM: of course there can. I can offer an alternative explanation for Patsy's fibers on the sticky side of the duct-tape.

The important thing to note, Kolar did when he remarked on the absence of IDI forensic evidence at the crime-scene, is that all this forensic evidence is to be found at the crime-scene, i.e. the wine-cellar, its not distributed about the house, but concentrated inside the windowless room.


And the bloodstain? Both items were likely deposited during the commission of the crime!

The pink nightgown should not be in the wine-cellar, why does any intruder wish to leave the nightgown here and not say upstairs in her bedroom?

What about the barbie-doll whose fingerprints or touch-dna was on it?

Point being is that there is no intruder forensic evidence linking all these items in the wine-cellar, but there is Ramsey forensic evidence, particularly to artifacts that should not not be present. This links all three remaining Ramsey's to the wine-cellar crime-scene!

.

Point taken UK, I know exactly where you are coming from. I'm just saying that a defence lawyer would have no problem at all dismissing Burke's DNA on that nightgown. There's just no way to prove how many days, weeks or months it was on there. It would have much more impact if there was at least some physical evidence tying Burke to the crime besides a fingerprint on a pineapple bowl.

 

[OliviaG1996]

No, I’m not kidding.

I am acknowledging that the fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket is incriminating to some degree. Is it the smoking gun that many RDI posters believe it to be? Nope. Not even close; and, I don’t think you’ll find anyone associated with the investigation making such a claim, either.

No, I don’t have to concede that, if RDI, the Ramseys probably would have worn gloves.

Yes, if the unsourced brown, cotton fibers came from gloves, than those gloves were removed from the home. By someone.

However, breaking and using the paint brush handle pretty much shows that, if RDI, the Ramseys weren’t concerned about items being traced back to them or the home; and, there is no evidence to show that they removed the gloves or any other object.

To ignore unsourced fibers simply because they have been unsourced is not reasonable. It is to ignore evidence. If they are unsourced they cannot be said to have an innocent explanation. They might, but they might not.

These unsourced are part of a body of trace evidence (fibers, hairs, DNA) found in incriminating locations that have not been sourced and that is consistent with the exact type of evidence that one should expect to find if this crime were committed by an intruder.

This is why so much effort – failed effort – has gone into trying to source these things. Because, they’re evidence and they’re evidence found in incriminating locations. They don’t put this sort of effort into trying to source or identify meaningless things. And, a belief in RDI, however strongly held, does not explain this evidence and it cannot make it go away.

So, we’re missing a source - probably a person, possibly the person responsible for this crime – for fibers, hairs, DNA, cord, tape and possibly gloves. Definitive proof of an intruder? No. Consistent with what an intruder could have left behind? Yes. Exculpatory value for the Ramseys? Yes.

People should try to take ALL the evidence into account and not just the evidence that favors their belief.
...

AK

BBM: Don't forget, someone was concerned enough to wipe off not just the flashlight, but the batteries of the flashlight. Why would an intruder do that? Why would someone bringing food/sympathy for the Ramseys while LE was looking for a "kidnapped" JonBenet do that? There are a lot of things that don't make complete sense in this case, or in any other for that matter. Plus, technically, there wouldn't be evidence that they removed the items from the home, considering LE wasn't paying much attention to JR for an entire hour.

BBM: I don't believe anyone is ignoring the unsourced fibers. In one of my previous posts I explained where they may have come from (brown gloves used by the Ramseys while covering up the crime, later disposed with the other unsourced items). In my opinion, it would make complete sense, whether IDI or RDI, for the fibers to be unaccounted for because there's the probability that the item the fibers came from was disposed of along with most of the other items used in the murder/cover-up.

 

[UKGuy]

Point taken UK, I know exactly where you are coming from. I'm just saying that a defence lawyer would have no problem at all dismissing Burke's DNA on that nightgown. There's just no way to prove how many days, weeks or months it was on there. It would have much more impact if there was at least some physical evidence tying Burke to the crime besides a fingerprint on a pineapple bowl.

andreww,
BBM: Well since the last time LHP washed it. A defence lawyer can try out anything he wants, but I'll bet any jury would see the significance of the bloodstain, BR's touch-dna, and the pink-nightgown all arriving at a crime-scene, and I'll bet they would not view it as a matter of chance.


Also we do not know if any other Ramsey touch-dna was found on JonBenet, they only released the information regarding the unidentified dna found in her underwear, i.e. BR's touch-dna might be on the longjohns and it should not be there since JonBenet was placed directly in bed, freshly dressed in the longjohns.

.

 

[questfortrue]

andreww,
BBM: Well since the last time LHP washed it. A defence lawyer can try out anything he wants, but I'll bet any jury would see the significance of the bloodstain, BR's touch-dna, and the pink-nightgown all arriving at a crime-scene, and I'll bet they would not view it as a matter of chance.


Also we do not know if any other Ramsey touch-dna was found on JonBenet, they only released the information regarding the unidentified dna found in her underwear, i.e. BR's touch-dna might be on the longjohns and it should not be there since JonBenet was placed directly in bed, freshly dressed in the longjohns.

.

Speaking of the nightgown, there was a curious response from JR in his '98 interivew. BBM Typos? Who is the "he" referenced?

MIKE KANE: There was a nightgown
3 that was found down in the wine cellar?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: I have heard about
5 that.
6 MIKE KANE: Okay, do you know
7 anything about that?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
9 MIKE KANE: Was that --
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I had never seen
11 that. I didn't see it when he was down this.
12 Sounds very bizarre. I don't know why that
13 would be there. I mean that room was usually
14 full of Christmas stuff. It's a nasty room.
15 Just you didn't go in there.
16 MIKE KANE: Could have been brought
17 down in a blanket?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: I suppose, I don't
19 know. I didn't see it at all. As part of the
20 blanket or anything.
21 MIKE KANE: You don't remember it
22 being there or anywhere?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: Not at all.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Speaking of the nightgown, there was a curious response from JR in his '98 interivew. BBM Typos? Who is the "he" referenced?

MIKE KANE: There was a nightgown
3 that was found down in the wine cellar?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: I have heard about
5 that.
6 MIKE KANE: Okay, do you know
7 anything about that?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
9 MIKE KANE: Was that --
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I had never seen
11 that. I didn't see it when he was down this.
12 Sounds very bizarre. I don't know why that
13 would be there. I mean that room was usually
14 full of Christmas stuff. It's a nasty room.
15 Just you didn't go in there.
16 MIKE KANE: Could have been brought
17 down in a blanket?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: I suppose, I don't
19 know. I didn't see it at all. As part of the
20 blanket or anything.
21 MIKE KANE: You don't remember it
22 being there or anywhere?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: Not at all.

That is very strange. I wish the video recordings of these interviews were released in full (if they were videotaped) so we can watch them on YouTube or somewhere similar. Also, regarding the nightgown, I don't understand why the "intruder" wouldn't take that as a souvenir
instead of the cord/duct tape. Not doing so makes as much sense as this intruder wrapping her in the warm blanket fresh out of the dryer, I guess.

 

[inspector rex]

BBM. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it go away. Typical IDI behaviour, trying to dismiss damning evidence while making up some stupid story to explain how those fibres happened to be there. You really believe that at that precise moment that when either John or Fleet touched that tape, that they happened to have had four of Patsy's jacket fibres on the one fingertip that would have touched the sticky surface of the tape?? Give your head a shake and try again.

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.

 

[BBB167893]

The argument you present here is sad. Mrs Ramsey – the liar – says she never did this or that and she can’t explain how the fibers got where they were (I bet an intruder would say the same things!). And Mr Ramsey said something different. Therefore, BINGO, direct transfer! Case closed. Good grief.

"Good grief" is RIGHT!
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

It doesn't take a degree in advanced calculus to know that known fibers in incriminating places + known inconsistency = something wrong here!

And yes, I believe it was a lie. A very obvious one.

Fibers don’t care. They just don’t care. They don’t care about us and they don’t care about our silly little arguments and they don’t care about how they got where ever they got or who put them there. They just float around and they hitch rides on people and things and they transfer, transfer, transfer...

Still, when they transfer to incriminating locations we need to take note.

I repeat: That's what I'm doing!

But, we should expect Ramsey fibers to be present in the home.

In the HOME is one thing, Anti-K. On cord and tape the Rs claim was never in the house until that night is something else again.

 

[BBB167893]

I just find this argument about fibers supposedly consistent with the jacket she wore the previous evening being found on her daughter to be quite silly.
How can you assume them to be incriminating when Patsy had the jacket on when she helped JonBenet dress, during the evening, and when she put her to bed that night?

IF that were the argument, you might be onto something. It's not a question of ASSUMING anything. I made the argument.

I don't believe they were in the paint tote or knot, as these don't seem to have been proven.

Patsy proved it. She said it all.

On the other hand, unsourced fibers?? Definitely indicate that there may have been an unidentified person present. I hear there was brown cotton fibers.

Like the man said, rex: there had to be millions of unknown fibers in the house. Pretty flimsy basis, IMO.

There was also some dark (blue?) fibers on her from an unidentified cloth which supposedly wiped her down.

If those are the ones I'm thinking of, they're not unidentified.

SuperDave: In answer to your question.
I see the dismissing of the unsourced fibers as evidence of an intruder as being treated by you in just the same way as the unsourced DNA is evidence of an intruder.

Well, rex, I'm not gonna fault you for telling the truth. What seems to have been overlooked by you (not JUST you) is my reasoning.

And it doesn't surprise me that you stated "What I said speaks for itself, or at least it should.",as your habit of diminishing and dismissing intruder evidence whilst amplifying and expanding RDI evidence way beyond it's importance, as simply backing your own theory.
It is expected.

Yes, I expected you'd say something like that. Any interpretation except the one I'm trying to get across, right?

It tells me you no longer have a perspective that does not include RDI.

There IS method to my seeming madness, rex.

 

[BBB167893]

I am acknowledging that the fibers consistent with the Ramsey/White jacket is incriminating to some degree. Is it the smoking gun that many RDI posters believe it to be? Nope. Not even close; and, I don’t think you’ll find anyone associated with the investigation making such a claim, either.

Speaking for myself, Anti-K, I wouldn't say anything is a smoking gun. But that's a whole other pot of coffee...

This is why so much effort – failed effort – has gone into trying to source these things. Because, they’re evidence and they’re evidence found in incriminating locations. They don’t put this sort of effort into trying to source or identify meaningless things.

Oh, yes, they do. And you're demonstrating why right now!

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, but by your logic nobody should be charged with anything provided there are unaccounted for fibres, hairs or trace DNA found at the scene. There always will be unaccounted for evidence because we simply don't live under lab-like conditions. This case has so much that points directly at the Ramsey's yet a handful of people get hung up on stupid brown fibres that more than likely came from Patsy's mittens anyway.

It's like I've said a million times, andreww: the only time every single things fits the crime is on TV.

 

[BoldBear]

Flashlight Batteries:

Sometimes when I clean (one part of my job), I wear gloves. I really don't think about having them on and can change a flashlight's batteries. The absence of fingerprints on the batteries can be a big clue or nothing special. Did LHP occasionally wear gloves when she was cleaning?

Also there's been a lot of discussion about the flashlight not having fingerprints. Is there evidence that there were no fingerprints on the flashlight? Or is it that there were no identifiable fingerprints on the flashlight? I remember reading that the Maglight had a textured surface which would make any fingerprints unuseable.

It seems like the flashlight would have been a great candidate for a touch DNA source. Too bad that chance was missed. Finding touch DNA on it that matched the crime scene would have completely change this conversation.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, but by your logic nobody should be charged with anything provided there are unaccounted for fibres, hairs or trace DNA found at the scene. There always will be unaccounted for evidence because we simply don't live under lab-like conditions. This case has so much that points directly at the Ramsey's yet a handful of people get hung up on stupid brown fibres that more than likely came from Patsy's mittens anyway.

No. If that was my logic, it would be silly. I’m not sure how you arrived at this interpretation.
...

AK