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

[Anti-K]

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.

I don’t think it is a fact that the flashlight and/or batteries were wiped. No prints were found, but “When a report reads "no prints,"… … means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it... …The term "no prints" does not mean that there were no marks or smears - it means that if any markings were present, they lacked sufficient detail to be of evidentiary value.” ("Fingerprints: What They Can & Cannot Do!," The Print, Volume 10, number 7, June 1994, pp. 1-3.)

I do believe that some people are ignoring the unsourced fibers, and hairs and DNA. Anyone who says that there is not even the teensiest littlest bit of intruder evidence is ignoring them. 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.

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

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

If IDI, how do we know that the intruder was even aware of the barbie nightgown? It could have simply got caught up with the victim or the blanket. Or, maybe it was already in that room because of some darn, kids-can-only-understand type reason?

If you’re thinking souvenir, how about the missing end of the paint brush, possibly used for the sexual assault?

If IDI, the cord/tape may have been used in its entirety, the intruder only bringing with him that which he felt was necessary.

And, what’s this about a “warm blanket fresh out of the dryer?”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

"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.



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



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.

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

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.
.

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

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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



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

I’m demonstrating what right now? That investigators put effort into identifying or sourcing meaningful things? Nonsense. You’re just saying that. Investigators only investigate things that have the potential to be meaningful.

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.

Theory-first reasoning (a la Kolar et. al) is BAD REASONING. Even if RDI is true, the rationale is heavily flawed.
You know why they try to source trace evidence found in incriminating locations? Because it is in incriminating locations. They need to determine whether or not that evidence has an innocent or a guilty explanation. If that evidence goes unsourced than the nature of that explanation cannot be known.

Using theory to determine the meaning and/or value of incriminating evidence, as you (a la Kolar et. al) do, is BAD REASONING. Even if RDI is true, the rationale is heavily flawed.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

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.

I never said the unsourced fibers were from a random visitor, I said they were from the gloves the Ramsey's wore to kill their daughter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I’m demonstrating what right now? That investigators put effort into identifying or sourcing meaningful things? Nonsense. You’re just saying that. Investigators only investigate things that have the potential to be meaningful.

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.

Theory-first reasoning (a la Kolar et. al) is BAD REASONING. Even if RDI is true, the rationale is heavily flawed.
You know why they try to source trace evidence found in incriminating locations? Because it is in incriminating locations. They need to determine whether or not that evidence has an innocent or a guilty explanation. If that evidence goes unsourced than the nature of that explanation cannot be known.

Using theory to determine the meaning and/or value of incriminating evidence, as you (a la Kolar et. al) do, is BAD REASONING. Even if RDI is true, the rationale is heavily flawed.
...

AK

What do you expect to find from those unsourced fibers? It has been close to 20 years now, I don't think they are going to find a source. So those fibers are in fact useless aren't they? You can't sit here and say that we can't suspect the Ramsey's until we find a source for those fibers, thats just ridiculous. You say the cops went through extreme efforts to find the source for those fibers, and yet they didn't find the opened "days of the week" panties that were obviously still in the house. Bottom line, just because they didn't find a source, doesn't mean it wasn't there to begin with. The house was big and I'm sure there were hiding spots the cops didn't find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

.

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.

AK

This whole idea of "theory first reasoning" is just sill AK. It's closing in on 20 years now and I don't think either Dave or myself have even positively locked ourselves in to a suspect, so how can we be using our theories to interpret evidence. Ramsey fibers ate all over the crime scene, we know they handled evidence like the note and flashlight, yet their fingerprints are conspicuously absent from all these things. It makes sense to assume that gloves were worn when handling these items, and as an extension, handling the body. We also know the body was wiped, but with what? So we likely have gloves touching the body and we positively have some sort of cloth touching the body. I suggest that the unsourced fibers likely came from one of those two items.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

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

AK

Okay, what is your logic? As evidence those fibers are neutral, not pointing at IDI or RDI. Obviously a source is unlikely to be found, yet you seem to be using them as an arguing point. What are you saying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inspector rex]

I never said the unsourced fibers were from a random visitor, I said they were from the gloves the Ramsey's wore to kill their daughter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM

I think you are again stating as a fact something you are only speculating about.

Remember, facts and logic?

Not stating things as facts because they fit your theory?

 

[andreww]

BBM

I think you are again stating as a fact something you are only speculating about.

Remember, facts and logic?

Not stating things as facts because they fit your theory?

The fact that no Ramsey fingerprints were found on the ransom note and that no Ramsey fingerprints were found on the flashlight, both things that they were known to have handled, indicates that there was likely an effort made to minimize having their prints on items connected to the crime. That is not speculation, that is fact. If their prints had been on that note and on that flashlight, it would be speculation.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I don’t think it is a fact that the flashlight and/or batteries were wiped. No prints were found, but “When a report reads "no prints,"… … means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it... …The term "no prints" does not mean that there were no marks or smears - it means that if any markings were present, they lacked sufficient detail to be of evidentiary value.” ("Fingerprints: What They Can & Cannot Do!," The Print, Volume 10, number 7, June 1994, pp. 1-3.)

I do believe that some people are ignoring the unsourced fibers, and hairs and DNA. Anyone who says that there is not even the teensiest littlest bit of intruder evidence is ignoring them. 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.

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

AK

JR must have some pretty clean fingertips 24/7 in order for nothing in the house that had been dusted for prints to have his fingerprints on them (none that I've ever heard of, anyway). When there's no fingerprints on the batteries, which you have to install yourself with Maglites, and none on the actual flashlight itself, something's off. Unless JR has a habit of washing his hands before handling every single item, there is no reason why his fingerprints (and/or JAR's, PR's, BR's) shouldn't be on that flashlight. It's understood why they are not on the ransom note after he handled it, since he supposedly showered right beforehand, but not the flashlight. Extremely unlikely.

The unsourced DNA is not necessarily intruder evidence, it's just unknown where the DNA came from. The samples found in the underwear aren't large enough (for most RDIs) to be taken as evidence of someone unknown being near the underwear, AKA, an intruder. There's always the possibility that the DNA was saliva from a sneeze or cough from a factory worker. You know where I stand with the unsourced fibers, I don't believe that's evidence of an intruder, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there . As for the unsourced hairs, I've never heard anything about them.

 

[OliviaG1996]

If IDI, how do we know that the intruder was even aware of the barbie nightgown? It could have simply got caught up with the victim or the blanket. Or, maybe it was already in that room because of some darn, kids-can-only-understand type reason?

If you’re thinking souvenir, how about the missing end of the paint brush, possibly used for the sexual assault?

If IDI, the cord/tape may have been used in its entirety, the intruder only bringing with him that which he felt was necessary.

And, what’s this about a “warm blanket fresh out of the dryer?”
...

AK

Even though we know some crime scene photos do not purely portray how the items in the photos were originally found, the Barbie nightgown looks pretty out in the open to me. Besides, what about the blood on the nightgown? Certainly the nightgown was close and in sight while the sexual assault/something involving JBR's blood was occurring otherwise the blood wouldn't have made it's way towards the Barbie nightgown. According to PR, JBR didn't normally get nosebleeds, so the blood most likely had to do with the crime, right? As for the white blanket, I know some IDIs don't take what Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had to say as serious evidence (I don't understand why), but here:

From: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder and the Grand Jury's Search for the Final Truth
by Lawrence Schiller:
"They also showed [LHP] a picture of JonBenet's white thermal blanket which had many urine and brown-colored stains on it. Some of them looked like dried blood. Then they showed her a picture of JonBenet's bed, which looked strange to her. Looking at the comforter, you couldn't tell that the blanket beneath it had been pulled off. The bed looked barely disturbed. Hoffmann-Pugh knew that to pull the blanket off, you had to first remove the comforter, otherwise it would get messed up. But in the photo, it was neat. Maybe the white blanket hadn't been on the bed at all. She told the police that the blanket might have been in the washer-dryer outside JonBenet's room. Then they showed her a photograph of the dryer, with the door open. Inside, she saw JonBenet's pink-and-white-checkered sheets, which she had put on the bed two days before the murder. But on JonBenet's bed in another photo were the Beauty and the Beast sheets.

"The logical explanation, Hoffmann-Pugh said, was that JonBenet had wet the bed on either Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday night. The clean sheets had probably been put on the bed and the wet sheets, blanket, and maybe even the Barbie nightgown were put in the wash and dried. The Ramseys didn't even have a clothes hamper, she said. When they took off their dirty clothes, they would just leave them lying around. The only things that went directly into the washer were JonBenet's urine-soaked sheets and blanket, so that they wouldn't smell. Only someone who knew which washer and dryer the Ramseys used for JonBenet's sheets and blanket would know where to find the blanket if it wasn't on the bed. Just as important, the washer-dryer outside JonBenet's room was built into a cabinet. Hoffmann-Pugh speculated that whoever killed JonBenet knew where the blanket was that night and probably took it out of the dryer."

 

[Anti-K]

What do you expect to find from those unsourced fibers? It has been close to 20 years now, I don't think they are going to find a source. So those fibers are in fact useless aren't they? You can't sit here and say that we can't suspect the Ramsey's until we find a source for those fibers, thats just ridiculous. You say the cops went through extreme efforts to find the source for those fibers, and yet they didn't find the opened "days of the week" panties that were obviously still in the house. Bottom line, just because they didn't find a source, doesn't mean it wasn't there to begin with. The house was big and I'm sure there were hiding spots the cops didn't find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I don’t expect to ever find anything from those fibers. It’s too late. But, they still exist. And, because of location and because they are unsourced their exculpatory value remains.

And, Andreww, I have never said that you can’t suspect the Ramseys until the fibers are sourced. In fact, I have several times stated that suspicion was justified. And, yes, the Ramsey fibers have some incriminatory value. I accept all the evidence, I don’t try to make some of is disappear because it doesn’t fit a belief.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This whole idea of "theory first reasoning" is just sill AK. It's closing in on 20 years now and I don't think either Dave or myself have even positively locked ourselves in to a suspect, so how can we be using our theories to interpret evidence. Ramsey fibers ate all over the crime scene, we know they handled evidence like the note and flashlight, yet their fingerprints are conspicuously absent from all these things. It makes sense to assume that gloves were worn when handling these items, and as an extension, handling the body. We also know the body was wiped, but with what? So we likely have gloves touching the body and we positively have some sort of cloth touching the body. I suggest that the unsourced fibers likely came from one of those two items.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Okay, what is your logic? As evidence those fibers are neutral, not pointing at IDI or RDI. Obviously a source is unlikely to be found, yet you seem to be using them as an arguing point. What are you saying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My “logic” is that none of the trace evidence found in incriminating locations is “neutral.”
The only way that any of this evidence could be termed neutral is if it had an innocent explanation. Failure to source this evidence, despite effort, actually decreases the likelihood of their being an innocent explanation for it. Failure to source these fibers to the house actually increases the likelihood that they came from outside the house.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

JR must have some pretty clean fingertips 24/7 in order for nothing in the house that had been dusted for prints to have his fingerprints on them (none that I've ever heard of, anyway). When there's no fingerprints on the batteries, which you have to install yourself with Maglites, and none on the actual flashlight itself, something's off. Unless JR has a habit of washing his hands before handling every single item, there is no reason why his fingerprints (and/or JAR's, PR's, BR's) shouldn't be on that flashlight. It's understood why they are not on the ransom note after he handled it, since he supposedly showered right beforehand, but not the flashlight. Extremely unlikely.

The unsourced DNA is not necessarily intruder evidence, it's just unknown where the DNA came from. The samples found in the underwear aren't large enough (for most RDIs) to be taken as evidence of someone unknown being near the underwear, AKA, an intruder. There's always the possibility that the DNA was saliva from a sneeze or cough from a factory worker. You know where I stand with the unsourced fibers, I don't believe that's evidence of an intruder, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there . As for the unsourced hairs, I've never heard anything about them.

One print from Mrs Ramsey and one print from Burke were found on a bowl, but we know they must have handled that bowl with more than one finger each; right? So, were they wearing 4 fingered gloves or is it possible that a lot of the time prints just aren’t left behind, or they are left behind in an unreadable form – smudged, smeared, layered, etc?

So, was it wiped, or was the flashlight/batteries wiped, or is it simply a matter of no prints being discernible?

Kolar; p. 49, “It [the flashlight] was processed for latent fingerprints, inside and out, but nothing could be lifted from its surfaces.”

Thomas offers three explanations for the flashlight, 1) it belonged to the family, 2) it was left behind by an intruder, and 3) it was left behind by “some cop.” He writes, “That it bore no fingerprints was consistent with a piece of equipment being handled in cold weather by a cop wearing gloves.” p. 240

For me, the flashlight is an unsettled question. We can explore what it might mean they had been wiped, but maybe they weren’t wiped, in which case all that discussion would be meaningless. Based on something that didn’t happen.
.

The DNA is not necessarily intruder evidence. I agree. However, it does represent an individual who cannot be excused without being identified and cleared.
.

Animal airs in the victim’s hands, supposedly wolf hairs; and a beaver hair on the tape. Not sourced to the Ramseys, the house or to anyone, anywhere.

I don’t have time to reply to your post on the blanket.
...


AK

 

[andreww]

.

Animal hairs in the victim’s hands, supposedly wolf hairs; and a beaver hair on the tape. Not sourced to the Ramseys, the house or to anyone, anywhere.
...


AK

Did they compare those beaver hairs to Patsy's beaver boots that she was apparently proud of? Oh, and wasn't she seen wearing them at the White's that night?

 

[OliviaG1996]

One print from Mrs Ramsey and one print from Burke were found on a bowl, but we know they must have handled that bowl with more than one finger each; right? So, were they wearing 4 fingered gloves or is it possible that a lot of the time prints just aren’t left behind, or they are left behind in an unreadable form – smudged, smeared, layered, etc?

So, was it wiped, or was the flashlight/batteries wiped, or is it simply a matter of no prints being discernible?

Kolar; p. 49, “It [the flashlight] was processed for latent fingerprints, inside and out, but nothing could be lifted from its surfaces.”

Thomas offers three explanations for the flashlight, 1) it belonged to the family, 2) it was left behind by an intruder, and 3) it was left behind by “some cop.” He writes, “That it bore no fingerprints was consistent with a piece of equipment being handled in cold weather by a cop wearing gloves.” p. 240

For me, the flashlight is an unsettled question. We can explore what it might mean they had been wiped, but maybe they weren’t wiped, in which case all that discussion would be meaningless. Based on something that didn’t happen.
.

The DNA is not necessarily intruder evidence. I agree. However, it does represent an individual who cannot be excused without being identified and cleared.
.

Animal airs in the victim’s hands, supposedly wolf hairs; and a beaver hair on the tape. Not sourced to the Ramseys, the house or to anyone, anywhere.

I don’t have time to reply to your post on the blanket.
...


AK

BBM: I was talking about how none of JR's prints were found, not PR's or BR's. I don't think any RDI believes they were wearing gloves while handling the bowl of pineapple, so I'm not quite sure what you were getting at there.

BBM: Oh, those hairs. I thought you were speaking of hairs from an unknown human being. The problem there is that there is absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the animal hairs matched anything containing fur in the house. This is what Steve Thomas had to say:

From ACandyRose:
STEVE THOMAS: "I agree with you on one issue about the beaver hair -- too bad there wasn't a DA who would approve warrants and subpoenas for Patsy's fur garments, coats, boots, etc. That way we could have done comparison analyses, and determined if Patsy had anything that 'matched' or was 'consistent'. Or, for your argument, that didn't. I feel it would have been wise to take those steps, to determine whether there was a match, or not. It would have been invaluable to have known, to both sides."


Speaking of hair, body hair from PR's maternal lineage was found on the blanket. Is it insignificant? Maybe, but it was there along with the animal hairs on JBR's hands and the duct tape. The hairs, in my opinion, don't prove either RDI or IDI.

 

[UKGuy]

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.

questfortrue,
Its difficult to make sense of what JR is saying. He seems to be talking in the past tense and referring to someone else, Fleet White?

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.

From memory a previous response was that should not be there, now its bizarre, was it not perverted before, I forget?

I mean that room was usually
14 full of Christmas stuff.

uh, huh, enter left James Kolar with a motive, e.g. Christmas Present, i.e. barbie doll?

It's a nasty room.

Strange phrase.

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.

Weird, I'll bet Fleet White was asked the same questions, e.g. did you see it the first time around, or the white blanket etc, I'll bet he has different answers?

21 MIKE KANE: You don't remember it
22 being there or anywhere?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: Not at all.

Standard ramnesia.

.

 

[inspector rex]

The fact that no Ramsey fingerprints were found on the ransom note and that no Ramsey fingerprints were found on the flashlight, both things that they were known to have handled, indicates that there was likely an effort made to minimize having their prints on items connected to the crime. That is not speculation, that is fact. If their prints had been on that note and on that flashlight, it would be speculation.

Whether or not there were no fingerprints, or whether fingerprints were not obtained or, whether the fingerprints were smudged, or whether the information about the fingerprints is correct or not is totally beside the point.

What you sated was that the fibers came from the gloves they wore to kill their daughter.

That is not a fact.