The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

How...in YOUR opinion....did the fibers from Patsy's jacket..that she wore that night...end up in the paint tote?

A more credible statement would've been 'fibers consistent with PR's jacket'. Fibers aren't like fingerprints or DNA. Dark colored fibers are dark colored fibers. I'd like for you to provide a source that states that the fibers found in the paint tote were conclusively from PR's jacket.

Besides, if RDI can make up stories like PR impersonating a SSF to explain certain phenomenon, then an intruder can wear PR's jacket. What about that idea?

 

[Ames]

IDI has quite a simple explanation for that,one that defies all logic,not to mention all means of scientific analysis...and we are just supposed to believe THEM over what forensics tells us... JB had Patsy's fibers on her because Patsy was her mom,they spent the evening together and so her fibers would be on her from that.
It's your basic 2+2 =5 logic.
So I guess JB must have already been wearing the cord around her neck that evening,and she must have carried that paint tote to the party.

As sad as this case is...that was pretty funny!!! :clap:

 

[JMO8778]

As sad as this case is...that was pretty funny!!! :clap:

..and Patsy lent her jacket to one of the intruders..that was nice of her.It must have been cold down there.

 

[DeeDee249]

..and Patsy lent her jacket to one of the intruders..that was nice of her.It must have been cold down there.

So Holdon, you are suggesting that the intruder went into the R bedroom, where both parents were allegedly sleeping, and took PR's jacket? Do you not see how insane this sounds?

 

[Ames]

A more credible statement would've been 'fibers consistent with PR's jacket'. Fibers aren't like fingerprints or DNA. Dark colored fibers are dark colored fibers. I'd like for you to provide a source that states that the fibers found in the paint tote were conclusively from PR's jacket.

Besides, if RDI can make up stories like PR impersonating a SSF to explain certain phenomenon, then an intruder can wear PR's jacket. What about that idea?

This is just one link...theres plenty more...

1. Fiber Evidence. Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing that night were found in places key to the crime: the paintbrush caddy she kept her art supplies in, the blanket used to wrap JonBenet's body, on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth, and tied into both knots of the ligature used to strangle JonBenet. Patsy denies she ever went near these places wearing that sweater. In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those."

 

[Ames]

So Holdon, you are suggesting that the intruder went into the R bedroom, where both parents were allegedly sleeping, and took PR's jacket? Do you not see how insane this sounds?

That was so ridiculous...I chose not to even justify it with a reponse!

 

[Ames]

..and Patsy lent her jacket to one of the intruders..that was nice of her.It must have been cold down there.

Yep, that had got to be ONE of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard an IDI say. Maybe the intruder wore Patsy's jacket? Yeah, okay...and maybe pigs fly and hell has frozen over too.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is just one link...theres plenty more...

1. Fiber Evidence. Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing that night were found in places key to the crime: the paintbrush caddy she kept her art supplies in, the blanket used to wrap JonBenet's body, on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth, and tied into both knots of the ligature used to strangle JonBenet. Patsy denies she ever went near these places wearing that sweater. In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those."

That says it in a nutshell. The questions LW would NOT let PR answer speaks volumes about her involvement in this crime. If there was an INNOCENT reason for those fibers to be there, her lawyer would have insisted she state them. His refusal to allow her to explain says that he knows how they got there, and it incriminates his client. Remember the Rs admitted that their defense attorneys were hired specifically to keep them out of jail, NOT to prove their innocence, which BTW, their lawyers never did. All they did was to prevent them from being asked anything which would point to their guilt. And threaten to sue anyone who got too close to the truth.

 

[Ames]

That says it in a nutshell. The questions LW would NOT let PR answer speaks volumes about her involvement in this crime. If there was an INNOCENT reason for those fibers to be there, her lawyer would have insisted she state them. His refusal to allow her to explain says that he knows how they got there, and it incriminates his client. Remember the Rs admitted that their defense attorneys were hired specifically to keep them out of jail, NOT to prove their innocence, which BTW, their lawyers never did. All they did was to prevent them from being asked anything which would point to their guilt. And threaten to sue anyone who got too close to the truth.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is just one link...theres plenty more...

1. Fiber Evidence. Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing that night were found in places key to the crime: the paintbrush caddy she kept her art supplies in, the blanket used to wrap JonBenet's body, on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth, and tied into both knots of the ligature used to strangle JonBenet. Patsy denies she ever went near these places wearing that sweater. In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those."

"Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing..."

This is tabloid junk plain and simple. Anybody who knows anything about fiber forensics will tell you that you cant match fibers to a garment. There's too many fibers and too many garments for that. Fibers, they say, can only be found to be 'consistent with' other fibers.

Why do you think Mr. Levin stated 'We believe' instead of 'We have found'? Something is fishy with that one. No wonder their lawyers wouldn't allow it.

Maybe you have one more link? Other than that one interview, I can't find anything, so the red fibers in the paint tote idea seems uncorroborated.

 

[JMO8778]

This is just one link...theres plenty more...

1. Fiber Evidence. Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing that night were found in places key to the crime: the paintbrush caddy she kept her art supplies in, the blanket used to wrap JonBenet's body, on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth, and tied into both knots of the ligature used to strangle JonBenet. Patsy denies she ever went near these places wearing that sweater. In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those."

that would have to be one heck of a coincidence to be anything other than the fibers from Patsy's jacket.
Now what is weird...IDI's will admit the fibers are Patsy's,yet explain them away by saying her fibers would be all over her anyway.
But give them scientific info. on it,and they deny it's Patsy's fibers...can't have it both ways.

 

[Solace]

"Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing..."

This is tabloid junk plain and simple. Anybody who knows anything about fiber forensics will tell you that you cant match fibers to a garment. There's too many fibers and too many garments for that. Fibers, they say, can only be found to be 'consistent with' other fibers.

Why do you think Mr. Levin stated 'We believe' instead of 'We have found'? Something is fishy with that one. No wonder their lawyers wouldn't allow it.

Maybe you have one more link? Other than that one interview, I can't find anything, so the red fibers in the paint tote idea seems uncorroborated.

You would do well on CrimeLibrary. One Hundred percent of the IDIs over there are as rude. But if that is how you want to play it, okay. No problem.

I can rise to the occasion and will be happy to accommodate you.

 

[Toltec]

We have John Ramsey saying in his book that he carries JonBenet into the home, lays her down on her bed and removes her coat and boots....yet her coat is found in the family's car.

We have Patsy claiming the only light she could remember that would be on in JonBenet's room is the nightlight in her bathroom...yet the police find that the lamp on JonBenet's nightstand is on.

We have both John and Patsy denying they fed pineapple to a sleeping child, yet she is found to have fresh pineapple in her system...the pineapple found in the bowl on the breakfast table.

I can go on and on but I must say that it is absolutely ludicrous to think an intruder would turn on the light in JonBenet's room, take her downstairs and feed her pineapple, wait two to three hours before molesting her and killing her.

The Ramseys are liars and they keep getting tripped up in their own lies. The evidence is contradictory to most of their statements and I'll call a liar a liar and a murderer a murderer.

 

[Solace]

We have John Ramsey saying in his book that he carries JonBenet into the home, lays her down on her bed and removes her coat and boots....yet her coat is found in the family's car.

We have Patsy claiming the only light she could remember that would be on in JonBenet's room is the nightlight in her bathroom...yet the police find that the lamp on JonBenet's nightstand is on.

We have both John and Patsy denying they fed pineapple to a sleeping child, yet she is found to have fresh pineapple in her system...the pineapple found in the bowl on the breakfast table.

I can go on and on but I must say that it is absolutely ludicrous to think an intruder would turn on the light in JonBenet's room, take her downstairs and feed her pineapple, wait two to three hours before molesting her and killing her.

The Ramseys are liars and they keep getting tripped up in their own lies. The evidence is contradictory to most of their statements and I'll call a liar a liar and a murderer a murderer.

Hi Toltec,

Not to Holdon it isn't ludicrous. Holdon takes the ransom note at face value and delves no deeper. She has a very simple way of looking at this crime and believes exactly what the note says, even though there is no scientific evidence giving it any credibility. There is not one shred of physical evidence of these three intruders and we have asked and asked for any evidence and she completely disregards the question. Sort of like Jameson when she is questioned on why she thinks she can charge for interviews when they are free on the internet.

It is the same mo that most IDI's have. They have no evidence, no argument, just a very simplistic answer and lots and lots of sarcasm. I am waiting as are others for an intelligent argument to support the intruders. Holdon have you got one?

 

[BOESP]

... completely disregards the question. Sort of like Jameson when she is questioned on why she thinks she can charge for interviews when they are free on the internet....

I was thinking along those same lines last night when I realized that instead of trying to put facts together to figure out who killed JonBenet, Holdon's purpose is to support Ramsey innocence.

 

[JMO8778]

All I can say is w. the likes of that so-called ridiculous 'ransom note',(and all the other evidence) I can't believe they ever got away with anything ! I can't believe anyone would think it was real,much less brutal.It sounds more like Patsy baked a gingerbread man and threatened to cut it's head off.

 

[JMO8778]

I was thinking along those same lines last night when I realized that instead of trying to put facts together to figure out who killed JonBenet, Holdon's purpose is to support Ramsey innocence.

most of his arguments are the same ones found in DOI.

 

[JMO8778]

Sort of like Jameson when she is questioned on why she thinks she can charge for interviews when they are free on the internet.

it's sad that so many ppl have betrayed JB in the name of the almighty dollar.I feel like a lot of these IDI's don't really believe the R's are innocent,but they hang on to their arguments for money and or reputation.and that's exactly why they want us to be quiet ;so the truth won't get out.
And Jams wanted her 15 mins of fame,(like wanting to testify at the GJ for one),and she eventually cashed in on this case in several different ways.very sad.

 

[Rino]

I was thinking along those same lines last night when I realized that instead of trying to put facts together to figure out who killed JonBenet, Holdon's purpose is to support Ramsey innocence.

Bulls-eye. This can be seen in many cases, sadly. The "investigation" turns from what happened and who did it to trying to prove who didn't do it, it's bass akcwards.

 

[BOESP]

The study of the subconscious mind fascinates me even though the psychological and behavioral sciences are more art than science. The ransom note was probably at least partially written from a subconcious level. It is erratic and scattered and there is always a possibility Patsy didn't write it. However, if you haven't already, try reading that note as if Patsy were writing John a letter intended to convey her true feelings. It makes an interesting study, particularly the last few lines. The line that tells John it's "all in his hands now" (or words to that effect) is a pretty good little ending.