You, the jury

[cynic]

Thanks, Cynic. I knew I had read that but after awhile it gets hard to remember where you read what.

You're welcome, and I know what you mean.

Do you believe that the different production runs mean the tape was not from the Ramsey home?

While I lean slightly toward the cord and duct tape being purchased by PR some weeks prior to Christmas at McGuckin’s, I don’t rule out the possibility that the tape and cord that were used, were from “old remnants” found in the house.
LHP recounted that she saw a similar cord wrapped around a box in the basement.
Also, if we consider that the photographer that used the PC-600, black duct tape was considered a “family photographer,” is it possible that perhaps a smaller picture and frame, 8x10 perhaps, may have had the tape that PR used?
One thing is certain; it’s unlikely that a grieving parent clutching a framed picture of their dead daughter as they left the home would be considered suspicious.
I wonder if the BPD took samples of any black duct tape that the photographer may have had around his studio?


A detective also found the Boulder portrait framer, who confirmed that the duct tape on the picture was his and that he bought his tape at McGuckin’s.
ST Page 282

"Detective Byfield, for example, had found duct tape that looked similar to the tape found in the wine cellar on the back of two paintings in the home, one of which was hung in JonBenet’s bedroom. The police would later learn that the tape had been placed on the frames by Better Light Photography Studio in 1993 and didn’t match the tape Ramsey said he had ripped off JonBenet’s mouth."
PMPT Page 106

TT: Who was the family photographer? Did the family photograph do JonBenet and Burke?
PR: We went for a while to a fellow named Willis. I can’t remember his last name, but he as at Better in Light Photography. And he’d usually take a Christmas picture. And then I started going to Moto Photo there in, down in Deckens (inaudible).
PR interview 1997

Maybe you should post this info on the "Coincidence" thread......

I think I will.

 

[MurriFlower]

You're welcome, and I know what you mean.

While I lean slightly toward the cord and duct tape being purchased by PR some weeks prior to Christmas at McGuckin’s, I don’t rule out the possibility that the tape and cord that were used, were from “old remnants” found in the house.
LHP recounted that she saw a similar cord wrapped around a box in the basement.
Also, if we consider that the photographer that used the PC-600, black duct tape was considered a “family photographer,” is it possible that perhaps a smaller picture and frame, 8x10 perhaps, may have had the tape that PR used?
One thing is certain; it’s unlikely that a grieving parent clutching a framed picture of their dead daughter as they left the home would be considered suspicious.
I wonder if the BPD took samples of any black duct tape that the photographer may have had around his studio?


A detective also found the Boulder portrait framer, who confirmed that the duct tape on the picture was his and that he bought his tape at McGuckin’s.
ST Page 282

"Detective Byfield, for example, had found duct tape that looked similar to the tape found in the wine cellar on the back of two paintings in the home, one of which was hung in JonBenet’s bedroom. The police would later learn that the tape had been placed on the frames by Better Light Photography Studio in 1993 and didn’t match the tape Ramsey said he had ripped off JonBenet’s mouth."
PMPT Page 106

TT: Who was the family photographer? Did the family photograph do JonBenet and Burke?
PR: We went for a while to a fellow named Willis. I can’t remember his last name, but he as at Better in Light Photography. And he’d usually take a Christmas picture. And then I started going to Moto Photo there in, down in Deckens (inaudible).
PR interview 1997


I think I will.

"The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been
sourced to defendants. (SMF 170; PSMF 170.) Both ends of the duct tape
found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape
that had been used before. (SMF 171; PSMF 171.) No similar duct tape
was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever
used or owned such duct tape. (SMF 172; PSMF 172.)"

and

By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News
April 24, 2006

"Things came to a head locally when Rapp and others at his company impersonated John Ramsey, the father of murdered 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet, to find out information about his finances, airline tickets and such.

Rapp's attempt to impersonate Ramsey to find out what he had bought at a Boulder hardware store set off a chain reaction that led to police casing the store and tracking down Rapp. They got a search warrant and raided Rapp's offices.

Some say Rapp distracted Boulder prosecutors from the JonBenet case because they spent so much time trying to track down how information was leaking. But Rapp said he had no regrets about his work, which found its way into supermarket weeklies. "

 

[DeeDee249]

I had read long ago that a couple of these bozos (who were impersonating JR) were the reason that a judge determined that the R phone records would never be allowed to be used in the investigation of JB's death. I don't recall exactly what they did to cause that, maybe one of you here remembers?
I think Rapp and cohorts had tried to get credit card info on the Rs, and it had something to do with the receipt from McGuckin's.

 

[MurriFlower]

I had read long ago that a couple of these bozos (who were impersonating JR) were the reason that a judge determined that the R phone records would never be allowed to be used in the investigation of JB's death. I don't recall exactly what they did to cause that, maybe one of you here remembers?
I think Rapp and cohorts had tried to get credit card info on the Rs, and it had something to do with the receipt from McGuckin's.

That's funny, I read on this forum it was the DA who wouldn't allow this.

I also read somewhere that ST spent a large amount of time and effort trying to source the tape and cord to the Rs. He was unsuccessful, so I think if there was anything in the house that had tape on it or cord on it that could have been traced to the cord and tape on JBR then ST would have uncovered it.

Here's a story on the phone records:

"Statement by Robert Douglas

before the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services
United States House of Representatives

Hearing On
Identity Theft and Related
Financial Privacy Issues

September 13, 2000
(snip)
Touchtone inserted itself into the Jon Benet Ramsey investigation. Here is a list written by James Rapp to a California private investigator outlining the Rapp’s work in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder investigation:

Here is a list of all Ramsey cases we have been involved with during the past lifetime (sic).

1. Cellular toll records, both for John & Patsy.

2. Land line tolls for the Michigan and Boulder homes.

3. Tolls on the investigative firm.

4. Tolls and home location on the housekeeper, Mr. & Mrs. Mervin Pugh.

5. Credit card tolls on the following:

a. Mr. John Ramsey, AMX & VISA

b. Mr. John Ramsey Jr., AMX.

6. Home location of ex-wife in Georgia, we have number, address & tolls.

7. Banking investigation on Access Graphics, Mr. Ramsey's company, as well as banking information on Mr. Ramsey personal.

8. We have the name, address & number of Mr. Sawyer & Mr. Smith, who sold the pictures to the Golbe (sic), we also have tolls on their phone.

9. The investigative firm of H. Ellis Armstead, we achieved all their land and cellular lines, as well as cellular tolls, they were the investigative firm assisting the Boulder DA's office, as well as assisting the Ramseys.

10. Detective Bill Palmer, Boulder P.D., we achieved personal address and numbers.

11. The public relations individual "Pat Kroton" (sic) for the Ramseys, we achieved the hotel and call detail where he was staying during his assistance to the Ramseys. We also have his direct cellular phone records.

12. We also achieved the son's John Jr.'s SSN and DOB.

13. During all our credit card cases, we acquired all ticket numbers, flight numbers, dates of flights, departing times and arriving times.

14. Friend of the Ramseys, working with the city of Boulder, Mr. Jay Elowskay, we have his personal info.

Of course, all the above have been repeatedly asked for over and over again.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance in this or any matter. (End of letter)"

 

[DeeDee249]

The DA refused to provide a WARRANT that would allow the BPD to obtain the phone records. The DA wanted to have the police simply "ask" for them.
Later on, that invasion of privacy matter was what caused a judge to disallow forever any use of the phone records in investigating the death of JB.

 

[justthinkin]

1) Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. She cannot account for this in a coherent way.

I don't even need to go beyond your #1 to convict, if not of murder, then PPR was an accomplice who helped the kidnappers stage the scene at the very least. If the fibers stick, you must convict.

 

[MurriFlower]

I don't even need to go beyond your #1 to convict, if not of murder, then PPR was an accomplice who helped the kidnappers stage the scene at the very least. If the fibers stick, you must convict.

Nah, she lived there, her fibers were on her daughter, the blanket, her husband, her friend. It tells you nothing to find four fibers of hers amongst many others that were unsourced to the house.

 

[justthinkin]

Nah, she lived there, her fibers were on her daughter, the blanket, her husband, her friend. It tells you nothing to find four fibers of hers amongst many others that were unsourced to the house.

That would be true for all the other incidences of her fibers, but fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape on JBR's mouth? That's a whole different ball field.

 

[MurriFlower]

That would be true for all the other incidences of her fibers, but fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape on JBR's mouth? That's a whole different ball field.

Not really, she had the same jacket on when she put her to bed the previous night. In the morning, JR and FW would have come into contact with the jacket, they had plenty of time between 6.20am and when JBR was found to hug her and get fibers on themselves. You are giving this way too much importance.

 

[UKGuy]

Not really, she had the same jacket on when she put her to bed the previous night. In the morning, JR and FW would have come into contact with the jacket, they had plenty of time between 6.20am and when JBR was found to hug her and get fibers on themselves. You are giving this way too much importance.

MurriFlower,

You must not allow your enthusiasm for IDI to transport you above and beyond the available evidence.

1. she had the same jacket on when she put her to bed the previous night. Correct

2. In the morning, JR and FW would have come into contact with the jacket. Correct

3. between 6.20am and when JBR was found to hug her and get fibers on themselves. Correct

You left out the fact that Patsy is on record stating that she never visited the wine-cellar that morning or the evening before.

So how did Patsy's fibers get onto the underside of the duct tape?

You are not giving this factor enough importance.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

You must not allow your enthusiasm for IDI to transport you above and beyond the available evidence.

1. she had the same jacket on when she put her to bed the previous night. Correct

2. In the morning, JR and FW would have come into contact with the jacket. Correct

3. between 6.20am and when JBR was found to hug her and get fibers on themselves. Correct

You left out the fact that Patsy is on record stating that she never visited the wine-cellar that morning or the evening before.

So how did Patsy's fibers get onto the underside of the duct tape?

You are not giving this factor enough importance.

.

UkGuy

There were four red fibers on the tape consistent with PRs jacket.

They were on the underside of the tape because it is sticky.

The tape was pulled off her mouth by someone who had been in contact with her and discarded (on the floor, on the blanket - who knows).

The tape was later picked up by another person who had been in contact with her and discarded a second time.

This explains how these fibers (that may or may not be from her jacket) could have ended up on the underside of the tape.

There were other fibers and fur also on the underside of the tape, that have not been sourced to the house, so they are the ones that interest me.

In your enthusiasm to discredit IDI, you are not giving that evidence the importance it deserves.

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy

There were four red fibers on the tape consistent with PRs jacket.

They were on the underside of the tape because it is sticky.

The tape was pulled off her mouth by someone who had been in contact with her and discarded (on the floor, on the blanket - who knows).

The tape was later picked up by another person who had been in contact with her and discarded a second time.

This explains how these fibers (that may or may not be from her jacket) could have ended up on the underside of the tape.

There were other fibers and fur also on the underside of the tape, that have not been sourced to the house, so they are the ones that interest me.

In your enthusiasm to discredit IDI, you are not giving that evidence the importance it deserves.

MurriFlower,

As before in your enthusiam to discredit RDI you leave out the fact that the same red acrylic fibers were found entwined in the garrote placed around JonBenet's neck.

You reckon Fleet White or John Ramsey transferred those also?

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

As before in your enthusiam to discredit RDI you leave out the fact that the same red acrylic fibers were found entwined in the garrote placed around JonBenet's neck.

You reckon Fleet White or John Ramsey transferred those also?

Uk Guy

This has been discussed recently and in the past. The fibers in the garrote was a question raised during interview. It has never been proven to be any more than tactics by LE to trap PR.

Your enthusiasm to discredit IDI is to be applauded. However, it would be better applied to trying to solve this crime.

 

[UKGuy]

Uk Guy

This has been discussed recently and in the past. The fibers in the garrote was a question raised during interview. It has never been proven to be any more than tactics by LE to trap PR.

Your enthusiasm to discredit IDI is to be applauded. However, it would be better applied to trying to solve this crime.

MurriFlower,

Thank you for your support, but I do not need to try hard to discredit IDI. Since there is zero forensic evidence demonstrating that an intruder was ever in the Ramsey house, how can any claims be made for IDI.

Claims about an intruder are based mainly on unknown and unmatched dna, but the same reasoning is never applied to the rest of the forensic evidence e.g. why does it lack similar touch dna?

Unlike the ethereal intruder there were three residents physically esconced within the Ramsey house on the fateful night, and it is from those three that either some or all are guilty of homicide and at minimum that of conspiracy, this would include extended family members too, since they played an active role.

JonBenet's sexual abuse was prior to the night of her death, this is why no intruder dropped by for some casual homicide embracing a lurid bondage theme. This staging was intended to mask the abuse, her death may even have been prompted by its disclosure.

Since the IDI discredits itself with its convoluted reasoning about artifacts that are deemed to belong to the intruder, this why the promotion of IDI will never lead to a solution of the case!

.

 

[MsBashterd]

It is going to take awhile for me to read through the whole thread before I will vote. Before I clicked on the thread I can say I am a RDI but I will objectively read through the thread. Too bad I don't have a choice of P&RDI that may slow me down as I believe that they were in it together. I will return after I make it through. :dance:

 

[BBB167893]

MurriFlower,

Thank you for your support, but I do not need to try hard to discredit IDI. Since there is zero forensic evidence demonstrating that an intruder was ever in the Ramsey house, how can any claims be made for IDI.

Claims about an intruder are based mainly on unknown and unmatched dna, but the same reasoning is never applied to the rest of the forensic evidence e.g. why does it lack similar touch dna?

Unlike the ethereal intruder there were three residents physically esconced within the Ramsey house on the fateful night, and it is from those three that either some or all are guilty of homicide and at minimum that of conspiracy, this would include extended family members too, since they played an active role.

JonBenet's sexual abuse was prior to the night of her death, this is why no intruder dropped by for some casual homicide embracing a lurid bondage theme. This staging was intended to mask the abuse, her death may even have been prompted by its disclosure.

Since the IDI discredits itself with its convoluted reasoning about artifacts that are deemed to belong to the intruder, this why the promotion of IDI will never lead to a solution of the case!

.

:clap: :clap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

MurriFlower,

Thank you for your support, but I do not need to try hard to discredit IDI. Since there is zero forensic evidence demonstrating that an intruder was ever in the Ramsey house, how can any claims be made for IDI.

Claims about an intruder are based mainly on unknown and unmatched dna, but the same reasoning is never applied to the rest of the forensic evidence e.g. why does it lack similar touch dna?

Unlike the ethereal intruder there were three residents physically esconced within the Ramsey house on the fateful night, and it is from those three that either some or all are guilty of homicide and at minimum that of conspiracy, this would include extended family members too, since they played an active role.

JonBenet's sexual abuse was prior to the night of her death, this is why no intruder dropped by for some casual homicide embracing a lurid bondage theme. This staging was intended to mask the abuse, her death may even have been prompted by its disclosure.

Since the IDI discredits itself with its convoluted reasoning about artifacts that are deemed to belong to the intruder, this why the promotion of IDI will never lead to a solution of the case!

.

Wow. In bold are things that can't be proven yet casually stated as fact. Somewhere between fantasy, fiction, and fortune-telling.

All I can say is that I hope you at least understand these are your claims, your opinions. Its hard to tell because they're casually stated as fact--as if we all agree.

I suggest supporting your claims with evidence and presenting them as theories. In the meantime this reads like sour grapes because as far as the media is concerned, RDI is a has-been. Probably more humility is in order for the weakening POV.

 

[MurriFlower]

Wow. In bold are things that can't be proven yet casually stated as fact. Somewhere between fantasy, fiction, and fortune-telling.

All I can say is that I hope you at least understand these are your claims, your opinions. Its hard to tell because they're casually stated as fact--as if we all agree.

I suggest supporting your claims with evidence and presenting them as theories. In the meantime this reads like sour grapes because as far as the media is concerned, RDI is a has-been. Probably more humility is in order for the weakening POV.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[UKGuy]

Wow. In bold are things that can't be proven yet casually stated as fact. Somewhere between fantasy, fiction, and fortune-telling.

All I can say is that I hope you at least understand these are your claims, your opinions. Its hard to tell because they're casually stated as fact--as if we all agree.

I suggest supporting your claims with evidence and presenting them as theories. In the meantime this reads like sour grapes because as far as the media is concerned, RDI is a has-been. Probably more humility is in order for the weakening POV.

Holdontoyourhat,

Its so simple and no amount of prevarication or describing my points as opinions or claims can deny that there is zero forensic evidence that an intruder was ever in the Ramsey house.

You can assert that any number of artifacts from the Ramsey house, are in fact, foreign brought in by the intruder, yet unlike the longjohns or size-12 underwear they all lack any matching touch dna. Is this a coincidence. You cannot argue for the existence of an intruder on the basis of touch dna, but have nothing to say about its absence from other crime-scene artifacts.

Then there is the unknown and unmatched dna, found on JonBenet's clothing, This could have been transferred from any number of origins, and by any one of the residents of the Ramsey house.

If it had been semen dna then all your IDI speculation would be fine, but with just touch dna, all you have is evidence that dna has travelled from one location to another, possibly via more than one person. This invalidates any idea that the touch dna maps one to one onto some intruder.

Wow. In bold are things that can't be proven

Nice to see you admitting it. So when are you going to stop beating your IDI drum using the touch dna as backup.

Its beacause of the IDI that the perpetrator has got away scot free!


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then there is the unknown and unmatched dna, found on JonBenet's clothing, This could have been transferred from any number of origins, and by any one of the residents of the Ramsey house.

The probability of your idea vs. the intruder's DNA isn't just a little different.

If it had been semen dna then all your IDI speculation would be fine, but with just touch dna, all you have is evidence that dna has travelled from one location to another, possibly via more than one person. This invalidates any idea that the touch dna maps one to one onto some intruder.

I think I see why you're seeing things this way, if you're sincere and not just banging the RDI drum for the helluvit. You believe that we're all awash in everybody else's genetic material, and that it floats around like dust. Free to migrate from hand to hand, clothing item to clothing item. Thats fine, for you. Personally, I don't really need the DNA evidence to believe IDI. I was already IDI before the DNA. But I'm here to tell you that you wont find any unknown male DNA in my shorts or on my waistband! Save all the rhetoric for the intruder's defense, I KNOW he'll appreciate it.


If you check your posts you'll find you've spent a great deal of time trying to convince others that the old blood swab DNA and the newly discovered DNA that ML found is all meaningless. I can understand that, believe me!

Now if you could just convince the lab technicians, the DA's office, and just about every tabloid, TV show, and news report...