Why the DNA may NOT be important

[CathyR]

I bet parents who aren't out of the investigators hair are represented by lawyers either.

The R's shouldn't be condemned for following legal advice but they have to live with the repercussion of it and that is an assumption of guilt.

This is the exact point where people start pointing to the R's behavior which to me clearly shows the parents are trying to, want to, cooperate with the police but the lawyers are limiting any additional information beyond what the early investigators, the ones reporting to the crime scene, got. They are making them build a case against them first. They stand by ready to DEFEND. That is what a lawyer does. They challenge the prosecution to throw down the cards or make an arrest. Since the DA didn't have so much as a pair of jacks to open.


There has been more than one case where multiple parties have been tried for the same offense and the prosecution only has to say we can tie them to the crime as a participant, we can't say who did what to JBR but the results are her death. It is criminal and both are equally guilty to have participated in it. Sometimes charging both defendants is what makes them "roll" on each other.

 

[BBB167893]

There has been more than one case where multiple parties have been tried for the same offense and the prosecution only has to say we can tie them to the crime as a participant, we can't say who did what to JBR but the results are her death.

Even if that's true, Cathy--and according to veteran prosecutors Vincent Bugliosi and Wendy Murphy, it doesn't work like that--Colorado law does not allow that to happen.

Sometimes charging both defendants is what makes them "roll" on each other.

Cathy, you just said the magic words! And if you'll visit the thread Beck was kind enough to give you, I'll be more than happy to continue.

 

[DeeDee249]

Cathy, police WANTED to bring the parents in for questioning and separate them for the interrogation. Pretty standard procedure for cases where someone has been murdered in their home and other residents were home at the time. Had they done that, we might not still be here today. The fact that their lawyers wouldn't allow it and the DA caved to them indicates to me that their own lawyers were aware of their guilt. If they were innocent, why not be questioned separately? If you are both telling the truth, your stories will match! In fact, that is what delayed the interviews as long as they were- the defense lawyers' condition was that they must be questioned together (and they also asked for the questions in advance- absolutely unheard of!)

 

[CathyR]

The job of a defense attorney is to go on a fishing expedition and try and prevent the police from investigating your clients at all. It is the term I refer to as legal "wrangling". The fact the DA didn't laugh his a@# off then issues warnings and a I mean business to the R's Lawyers is because, compared to them and their firms, the strategic hiring of two separate teams, and all the years of court room trial experience-- Hunter was intimidated. The whole strategy is to make the DA make an arrest so he has to allow the defense access to the evidence against their clients. Just because they asked for it, questioning together, written questions, etc., doesn't mean it was illegal just lawyers trying to get the best advantages for themselves/clients. That is what I meant by good "lawyering" ( I made up that word according to spell check). Hunter knew his case was very weak. He knew he would be facing the hardest hitters on the block. He just landed the case of his career and he knew it would make him or break him politically.

He didn't have palatable answers to give jurors just a hack job on Patsy, pageants, and supposed sexual offenses.

The R's would be able to bring in some hard hitters themselves to refute anything he had he didn't have a lot and that infuriates some.

Since we have all been told that a lot of the information regarding this case such as amendments to reports and other things like grand jury testimony is sealed. We have also been told By M. Kane that lots of things are secret and have never been released to the public, and lots has been released is false.

Where do we, as reasonably intelligent individuals, begin to sift through the mountains of information and make an even educated guess as to what happened?

I have been trying cross reference everything and if I can find copies of such items as the autopsy report and photos and the police do make references that these are indeed true photos. I count it in. It has been confirmed by officials.

When I can't find some corroborating source for information I count it as doubtful or under question.

I keep asking for any source except the blue paged pbworks site.
This case encyclopedia has conflicting evidence and also false information on it.
Is there any other source for information other than than site that states fibers from Patsy's sweater, coat, boots whatever were found in the garrote knot. All I can find is references to only her hair being in the knot.

I do find references to the fibers from her coat being in the paint caddy. Thomas writes of it, Schiller does to.

I ask again IS THE FIBERS IN THE GARROTE CORROBORATED EVIDENCE ?

 

[UKGuy]

When I can't find some corroborating source for information I count it as doubtful or under question.

I keep asking for any source except the blue paged pbworks site.
This case encyclopedia has conflicting evidence and also false information on it.
Is there any other source for information other than than site that states fibers from Patsy's sweater, coat, boots whatever were found in the garrote knot. All I can find is references to only her hair being in the knot.

I do find references to the fibers from her coat being in the paint caddy. Thomas writes of it, Schiller does to.

I ask again IS THE FIBERS IN THE GARROTE CORROBORATED EVIDENCE ?

CathyR,

Patsy denied ever being in the basement the night before, so her fibers should not be there, period!


Patsy's 2000 Atlanta Interview, excerpt

Q. We have found, and I want you to
22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation
23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint
24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in
25 the photograph we showed you.
0184
1 A. In the paint tray?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. What's a paint --
4 MR. WOOD: Hold on. Let him ask
5 you his question and then answer his
6 question. What is your question?
7 MR. LEVIN: I did.
8 MR. WOOD: You got your answer?
9 MR. LEVIN: Well, I got, she said
10 what's a paint tray.
11 MR. WOOD: No, she didn't. She
12 was following your question, in the paint
13 tray because you said we have found, and I
14 want you to help us, maybe you can offer an
15 explanation for this. We have found fibers
16 in the paint tray that appear to come off of
17 the coat in the photograph we showed you.
18 What is the question?
19 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Can you explain
20 for us how the fibers from the coat got in
21 the paint tray?
22 MR. WOOD: Are you stipulating as
23 a fact that the fibers that you say are in
24 the paint tray, in fact, came from that coat
25 that we earlier discussed, or is it simply a
0185
1 matter that you say they may have? Because
2 I am not going to let her answer
3 argumentative, hypothetical opinions. I will
4 let her answer if you are going to state it
5 as a matter of fact that that fiber came
6 from that jacket.
7 MR. LEVIN: I can state to you,
8 Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of
9 the scientific examination of fibers, that,
10 based on the state of the art technology,
11 that I believe, based on testing, that fibers
12 from your client's coat are in the paint
13 tray.

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.

There is a mountain of evidence implicating the Ramseys, and none linking to or matching an intruder. Very curious that.

.

 

[claudicici]

"WHAT'S A PAINT TRAY?"
PR,are you serious???

 

[CathyR]

If the perp is wearing gloves and handles items Patsy handled such as JBR's long johns and blanket the fibers she left there would be attracted to the latex gloves. The gloves have the fibers on them when the perp gets and breaks the paintbrush and returns the brush end to the tray. The fact that the perp returns the brush to the tray IMO seems unlike Patsy who has been reported to be a lousy housekeeper. She left clothes where they fell in the kids rooms. Much as been reported about her only keeping the "public" areas of the home picked up. Even if the perp is Patsy she could be dressed in a haz mat suit and still transfer her own fibers she had previously deposited. It is the nature of latex to attract fibers. Transfer transfer transfer.


Patsy did not complete her sentence which might have been ......What is a paint tray got to do with the case? I think she knew what a paint tray is but her lawyer cut her off before she could complete her sentence.


Thanks for the link to the interview I couldn't find the garrote fiber source.

 

[Agatha_C]

claudicici,

"WHAT'S A PAINT TRAY?"
PR,are you serious???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was funny???? How did people so dang dumb, become so rich... These are the questions that boggle the mind...

Q. Please state your name for the record.

PR. Well....Ummmm..I'm not really sure you see.....Uuuummmm.... I Umm, well you see....I ummm..Uh huh, I just dont really know.

 

[BBB167893]

CathyR,

Patsy denied ever being in the basement the night before, so her fibers should not be there, period!


Patsy's 2000 Atlanta Interview, excerpt




There is a mountain of evidence implicating the Ramseys, and none linking to or matching an intruder. Very curious that.

.

As if that weren't bad enough, even Lou Smit was forced to concede that the fibers were incriminating.

 

[madeleine]

claudicici,

"WHAT'S A PAINT TRAY?"
PR,are you serious???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was funny???? How did people so dang dumb, become so rich... These are the questions that boggle the mind...

Q. Please state your name for the record.

PR. Well....Ummmm..I'm not really sure you see.....Uuuummmm.... I Umm, well you see....I ummm..Uh huh, I just dont really know.

PR wasn't dumb.
And some keep sayin the R's being rich got them out of trouble.
I disagree,always have.
No matter how much money you got,if the cops and the DA's office are doing their jobs correctly,being rich or poor shouldn't matter.

It's not the R's fault that they were rich,it's the LE/DA's fault that they were blinded/impressed/afraid,whatever of/by it.IMO

 

[madeleine]

Whose fault was it that the R's weren't separated and questionned?Their lawyers fault,their fault?Hey,he did nothing illegal by stopping it.And they did nothing illegal by refusing.Pls note,I am saying illegal not imoral.

Whose fault was it that the DA's people were so stupid and handed them over all the evidence?Hey,lucky them if it worked,what can I say,with such DA people(and Eller,remember his comments?).

Yeah maybe they tried everything to cover their @sses but whose fault is it that on the other side most of the DA's people played along?Willingly?

The R's and their lawyers did nothing illegal.
It worked for them because there were cowardly,incompetent folks on the other side.The OTHER side should have been JB's side.

 

[BBB167893]

PR wasn't dumb.
And some keep sayin the R's being rich got them out of trouble.
I disagree,always have.
No matter how much money you got, if the cops and the DA's office are doing their jobs correctly,being rich or poor shouldn't matter.

It's not the R's fault that they were rich,it's the LE/DA's fault that they were blinded/impressed/afraid,whatever of/by it.IMO

You said a mouthful, maddy! I might change this to my signature.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Whose fault was it that the R's weren't separated and questionned?Their lawyers fault,their fault?Hey,he did nothing illegal by stopping it.And they did nothing illegal by refusing.Pls note,I am saying illegal not imoral.

Whose fault was it that the DA's people were so stupid and handed them over all the evidence?Hey,lucky them if it worked,what can I say,with such DA people(and Eller,remember his comments?).

Yeah maybe they tried everything to cover their @sses but whose fault is it that on the other side most of the DA's people played along?Willingly?

The R's and their lawyers did nothing illegal.
It worked for them because there were cowardly,incompetent folks on the other side.The OTHER side should have been JB's side.

You know what, Maddy? This goes to the comment I made the other day about our constitution needing changes. It's not right that the da's office could do whatever they wanted with impunity. They don't have to worry about being sued, or arrested, or any of the things that "we the citizens" have to worry about and that's a crying shame. Yes, the Ramseys took advantage of a system that worked to their favor, but it's a crying shame that this sorry imitation of a real da's office got by with the things they did. It was and still is illegal and in my opinion they should all be charged with obstruction of justice. Starting with Mary Lacy and going all the way down! Sorry, off rant now. Maddy just got me thinking about the Boulder da's office and I hate going there.

 

[Agatha_C]

Maddy,

Your right PR wasn't dumb, she just liked to give you that impression. I base it on the fact that could remember nothing and couldn't rub to words together to make a sentence. I believe she was really very smart, or at least the persona that she showed the world. Now say she had an alter ego from to much mental pressure being applied, maybe some Chemo brain going on (real condition by the way) even though it had been a while, if already unstable, it may have helped her lose touch with reality.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy liked to play up the Southern Belle, that's for sure. And if she wished to portray herself as being just a pretty but not-too-bright woman for the purposes of the investigation, it didn't fool them. I can see her reasoning- that she be seen as someone who wasn't smart enough to pull this off. Yet she gradated with honors as a journalism major. She was a smart cookie.

 

[cynic]

I concede but ask you to go back and read what Douglas says about the blanket. I already turned my copy back in to library. It is obvious he was not informed correctly about it's position on the body. He discusses in length why he came to the conclusions he did. It makes me ask who gave him that info-if it came from the R's then they lied to him. If it came from the PD well they had no reason to make their case public and give the R's any additional information.
Douglas describes the blanket as being haphazardly thrown over the body but your official tape shows John telling investigator Smit that she was wrapped.

He speaks to the issue of the blanket here, and he is definitely under the impression that the blanket was simply thrown on top of JBR:

For one thing, the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out. In all probability, the intruder intended to use the blanket to carry JonBenet out of the house. This is in no way similar to the almost hermetic wrapping or sealing I have often seen.
The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas, Page 316

Would his opinion have been different had he received the correct information?
A marginal defense of his integrity could be made based on that premise; however, he obviously would have known the truth of the matter as time passed. Why has he not corrected or amended his opinion?

Douglas spoke often about elements in a crime scene that point to filicide:

The weapon will be one of opportunity, often obtained and left at the crime scene
…
There are often indications of undoing. This is the killer’s way of expressing remorse or the desire to undo the murder. Undoing is demonstrated by the offender’s washing of the victim and the weapon. The body may be covered up, but it is not for concealment purposes.
Crime classification manual. John Douglas, Page 156

Douglas: When parents kill, there’s generally a softening of the crime scene. Where they take a blanket, cover up the child, roll the child over, face down or something like that…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14429987/

When a parent kills a child
…
Or it could be that a close relationship existed between the killer and the victim. Let's say a parent kills a child and then buries the body. You may find that the child was carefully wrapped or the face covered to keep dirt from getting in the mouth. In essence, someone is caring for the child after death.
There's a word we use: "undoing." That's when someone tries to somehow lessen the damage after committing the crime, maybe by cleansing and bandaging the wounds. The killer may try softening the appearance of the crime by making the body's position restful and clasping the hands, almost like the victim is laid out. It's a way of symbolically erasing or reversing the crime, and it suggests remorse. Doing this gives the subject away. It's a personal crime -- strangers wouldn't likely do this.
-John Douglas
http://web.archive.org/web/20001027...olvers/douglas/1999/10/07/douglas1007_01.html

Steve Thomas summed it up nicely:
John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, Page 137

It makes me ask who gave him that info-if it came from the R's then they lied to him. If it came from the PD well they had no reason to make their case public and give the R's any additional information.

His information came solely from the Ramseys and their team.
He spoke to the BPD, but only to give them his opinion on the case.
You will have to come to your own conclusion as to why the Ramseys lied to Douglas.

Only after interviewing Patsy and me for more than four hours did he conclude that we could not possibly have been involved.
Death of Innocence , John and Patsy Ramsey, Page 138

John Douglas did eventually receive a two-hour audience with two of the detectives who had been assigned to the case, Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo.
Death of Innocence , John and Patsy Ramsey, Page 108

Although still too distraught to meet with us, John and Patsy Ramsey spoke for several hours with their newest trophy hire, John Douglas, formerly with the FBI’s behavioral sciences unit.
John Ramsey’s lawyer Bryan Morgan was at the profiler’s side and permitted no direct questions about the Ramseys during a long interview.
Douglas, wearing a silk tie and an expensive suit, talked with machine-gun rapidity. He said the killer was someone who knew the house well, because it was a high-risk situation, and he pronounced the murder to be a crime of anger directed toward John Ramsey.
His former colleagues in the FBI disagreed and would tell us they were unaware of anyone killing a child as revenge against the parents. To my mind, a revenge killer would probably have left the lifeless body splayed beside the Christmas tree for maximum shock value.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, Page 136


John Douglas formed his opinion based exclusively on information from the prime suspects in a murder case and their legal team.
Douglas spent a few hours with the Ramseys, picked up his paycheck, flushed his conscience down the toilet, went against all of the profiling principles he preached on in the past, and declared them innocent.
Given his power to influence the general public this is not only unacceptable, it’s irresponsible.

 

[wonderllama]

I am/was a fan of John Douglas' books.
Ignoring the obvious patting one's self on the back, which you have to admit he probably deserved given his history and work, I think he presents things in a clear and logical manner in all his writings.

He's helping to catch the bad guys, that's got to be a good thing.

However, I know pride is a hard thing to budge on occasion, but is it strong enough to stop Mr Douglas from either admitting his conclusions are flawed or at least taking another look at the case with the full spread of evidence that's cropped up over the last 14 years?

Mr Douglas' record speaks for itself, so I would suggest that a revision of this case or an admission that he was working with a stacked deck wouldn't really damage his reputation at all.

In my short time on these boards I've said this before....you can be 100% sure and STILL be wrong. Maybe that refers to John Douglas....maybe is refers to us?

And just in addition....I recall him talking about how this case would probably never be solved.
This doesn't sound like something I'd expect him to say...sort of giving up at the get go.

 

[cynic]

Right, Sunnie. I honestly believe that after Waco, Douglas needed all the good press he could get and he really thought that the majority opinion was that the Ramsey's could not have done this. He made a very bad decision and he will pay for this one for a long time. I really hated this when it happened because of the respect I had always had for him.

It didn't end with Waco. When Karr was arrested, Douglas was strutting around accepting congratulations and saying that Karr fit his profile.
Then he quietly slithered away.
NEWSWEEK: You’ve said that you never suspected the Ramseys of this crime. Do you feel vindicated now?
John Douglas: A lot of people told me I was wrong. Now I’m getting all these congratulations.
…
NEWSWEEK: Does the suspect John Mark Karr fit the profile for this crime?
John Douglas: Certainly.
http://www.newsweek.com/2006/08/16/no-accident.html

 

[madeleine]

Maddy,

Your right PR wasn't dumb, she just liked to give you that impression. I base it on the fact that could remember nothing and couldn't rub to words together to make a sentence.

Re this,I think she was a bit like me.I would hate having a lawyer,know why?Cause I would probably hate not being able to give my OWN replies:angel:.She probably hated the fact that she has to respond the way the lawyers taught her.It didn't fit her."i don't recall" or "i don't know" didn't fit her,not artistic nor dramatic enough. (for any woman I guess? )
Just test in in your couple.Ask the man "what did you do today",he'll say "not much".....the woman will tell you about it for one hour.


:twocents:

 

[BBB167893]

I am/was a fan of John Douglas' books.
Ignoring the obvious patting one's self on the back, which you have to admit he probably deserved given his history and work, I think he presents things in a clear and logical manner in all his writings.

He's helping to catch the bad guys, that's got to be a good thing.

However, I know pride is a hard thing to budge on occasion, but is it strong enough to stop Mr Douglas from either admitting his conclusions are flawed or at least taking another look at the case with the full spread of evidence that's cropped up over the last 14 years?

Mr Douglas' record speaks for itself, so I would suggest that a revision of this case or an admission that he was working with a stacked deck wouldn't really damage his reputation at all.

In my short time on these boards I've said this before....you can be 100% sure and STILL be wrong. Maybe that refers to John Douglas....maybe is refers to us?

And just in addition....I recall him talking about how this case would probably never be solved.
This doesn't sound like something I'd expect him to say...sort of giving up at the get go.

There are a LOT of people, wonder, that just cannot STAND to be wrong. And they can't ever forget it. Or learn from it.