Why is Everyone so Certain that JonBenet's Body was 'Wiped Down'?

[aussiesheila]

We know that black fibres were found on JonBenet's body, around her crotch area and on her thighs. Linda Arndt, who was present at the autopsy stated that the coroner said to her at the time, that it looked as though JonBenet had been 'wiped down'.

Ever since then most people have assumed that this was, in fact, what happened; that the black fibres came from a cloth that was used to wipe JonBenet down.

It is entirely possible that these fibres did not come from any wiping down at all. I don't expect anyone will take this seriously, but I think they might have come from black balaclavas that pedophiles wore over their heads, not only to terrify JonBenet, but also to keep any of their facial or head hair from being deposited on her while they were molesting her prior to her being killed.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by aussiesheila
We know that black fibres were found on JonBenet's body, around her crotch area and on her thighs. Linda Arndt, who was present at the autopsy stated that the coroner said to her at the time, that it looked as though JonBenet had been 'wiped down'.

Ever since then most people have assumed that this was, in fact, what happened; that the black fibres came from a cloth that was used to wipe JonBenet down.

It is entirely possible that these fibres did not come from any wiping down at all. I don't expect anyone will take this seriously, but I think they might have come from black balaclavas that pedophiles wore over their heads, not only to terrify JonBenet, but also to keep any of their facial or head hair from being deposited on her while they were molesting her prior to her being killed.
The black fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants matched John Ramsey's shirt. Enough said.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by rashomon

The black fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants matched John Ramsey's shirt. Enough said.

Not enough said. That was never proven.

[Louisadelmar]

Are black fibers mentioned anywhere other than that interrogation?

[shill]

The black fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants matched John Ramsey's shirt. Enough said.
They have in evidence a black blanket with semen stains on it.

And you now there is no proof of the truth of that detective's statement.
If there was, John Ramsey would have been convicted a long time ago.

[aussiesheila]

The black fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants matched John Ramsey's shirt. Enough said.I do not accept this as a fact. Would you please give your source rashomon. Thanks.

[Athena]

I do not accept this as a fact. Would you please give your source rashomon. Thanks.

Don't bother aussie. Rash's favorite line is "prosecutors don't lie". LOL

[bullmoose]

Rashoman seems to think that lawyers in the US cannot lie;rashoman also seems to believe that if the lie about the fibers is told or repeated as fact on this board often enough, it will eventually be accepted as fact. It is in fact a lie that was introduced during JR's questioning to get a reaction or response. When the lie was challenged by Lin Wood, it seems like it was dropped, the claim of a match never came up again, even to the grand jury,it would seem. Because if there had been a match, IMO there would have been an indictment. Enough said.

[thewhitewitch1]

Rashoman seems to think that lawyers in the US cannot lie;rashoman also seems to believe that if the lie about the fibers is told or repeated as fact on this board often enough, it will eventually be accepted as fact. It is in fact a lie that was introduced during JR's questioning to get a reaction or response. When the lie was challenged by Lin Wood, it seems like it was dropped, the claim of a match never came up again, even to the grand jury,it would seem. Because if there had been a match, IMO there would have been an indictment. Enough said.


I am not so sure that a person could even be arrested based soley on fiber evidence. I also think the fibers can't be dismissed as a "lie". The fact is, we just don't know if the lawyers were lying or not and we don't know if it was brought up before the GJ either. You'd think that the lawyers had to have had some basis for questioning JR about it; just as they had a reason to question PR about the fibers from her coat being found in the garrote, paint tote etc.
The problem is, since JB was their child and the murder was commited in their home, there is always going to be that logical explaination for their fibers to on everything and everyone there. IMO That is the reason they weren't arrested and put on trial, among other things.

[LindaA]

The thing is, TWW1, we have given you a couple of cases, -- at least one -- in which someone was not only arrested abut also convicted on the basis of fiber evidence.

As for the black fibers, we have no evidence that they ever did exist -- just the reference to them during JR's interrogation. SO whyshould we believe they do exist?

[bullmoose]

Okay, if the fibers can't be dismissed as a lie, lets put them in a different category: Imaginary Fibers. This kind of evidence cannot be proven as false just because nobody has ever seen it. Its sort of like having an imaginary friend; just because nobody else sees him or her doesn't mean he/she isn't real---to you. As long as you believe he/she is real nobody can convince you otherwise. I think an old movie named Harvey dealt with the issue pretty well.

[Louisadelmar]

One of the reasons I don't believe in the 'black fibers from John's shirt' is Thomas wouldn't have given John a pass on being involved in the murder if they really existed and were found in JonBenet's crotch.

[shill]

That shirt of John's was suppose to be made in Isreal, a unique fabric. IMO if those fibers were a match, it would be conclusive because there would be no other material in evidence that is consistent with those fibers. In other words, it would most likely be the only source of those fibers, and you could convict someone solely on that evidence.

[rashomon]

I do not accept this as a fact. Would you please give your source rashomon. Thanks.
Aussiesheila, it was lawyer Levin who confronted John Ramsey with this evidence in an interview.
Shill and Bullmoose can cry all they want that Levin 'lied', but you can bet that John Ramsey's lawyer Lin Wood would have sued the hell out of Levin if he had presented false info to his client.
I pointed this out to Shill and Bulmoose a while ago, but that's exactly when one doesn't get replies from these posters: they know of course that this is true, but won't admit it.

[LindaA]

Aussiesheila, it was lawyer Levin who confronted John Ramsey with this evidence in an interview.
Shill and Bullmoose can cry all they want that Levin 'lied', but you can bet that John Ramsey's lawyer Lin Wood would have sued the hell out of Levin if he had presented false info to his client.
I pointed this out to Shill and Bulmoose a while ago, but that's exactly when one doesn't get replies from these posters: they know of course that this is true, but won't admit it.

I don't know why you insist Lin Wood would have sued if Levin had been lying. After all, he had other things to deal with at that time. I don't see why he wouldn't have picked his battles just as Bullmoose and Shill choose to do over you insistence that Levin was not lying. He might not have been lying, though, as he might not have known that the evidence did not exist. I understand that he was given the questions by the BPD. Funny we have never seen reference to this in any other piece of evidence.

[bullmoose]

Rashie: On what basis would Lin Wood have sued the hell out of Levin? Maybe things work altogether differently in Germany when it comes to police questioning; yes I know Levin is a lawyer, but he was asking questions for the BPD under normal conditions. All that could happen did happen, when Levin asked did John have any explanation for how four fibers from his shirt could end up in Jonbenet's genital area; Lin Wood interjected, properly so, that before he would let John answer such a question, he would have to see the basis for them asking such a tripwire question. Levin then dropped the question and went to another; it was a trick question to try to get John Ramsey to say something incriminating, nothing else. The four fibers, if they exist at all, do not now nor did they ever match John's Israeli-made shirt. Rashie, you have never convincingly pointed anything about the US or the Colorado criminal system or the way it works to me; I think things must be very different in Germany; for you to think the criminal system over here works like you state is erroneous and silly. The only way Lin Wood and the Ramseys could sue the lawyer Levin with regards to the Imaginary black threads would be if Levin wrote and published a book stating proven lies as being fact.You know, like Synthroid Steve and his Twisterpiece; him they sued.

[nuisanceposter]

Yes, and we know exactly how that lawsuit with Thomas turned out - the Rs offered him a settlement, stating that he was free to continue publishing his book with no alterations, that he could continue speaking on the subject as he chose, that he admitted to no wrongdoing, and he did not personally pay a penny to the Rs.

LindaA, I don't know how you can say "the evidence did not exist." You don't know that for a fact.

Bullmoose, you don't know for a fact that the fibers allegedly found on JonBenet "do not now nor did they ever match John's Israeli-made shirt."

None of that has ever been proven to the public either way. We don't know for a fact what the deal is on these fibers, and insisting that they don't exist without knowing that to be a fact is wrong.

[Louisadelmar]

To sue you need to have sustained damage of some sort. John Ramsey wasn't damaged because Levin made this claim in a private setting. I agree Wood isn't going to waste his time on this kind of thing any more than he would bother suing LHP.

[bullmoose]

I wasn't aware that the Twisterpiece was still being printed; yes its true Synthroid Steve didn't actually pay the Ramseys for his lies, his publisher did. And yes, he can keep speaking to:Whomever wants to hear him, wow, does he get invited to medical conventions to explain how the Jonbenet case made his thyroid go bonkers? He must rake it in. NP, since the fibers are Imaginary Fibers,with no evidence of existence beyond that question at JR's interview, I feel comfortable in saying they do not now or ever did match JR's shirt. If the fibers exist at all and if they were a match, I firmly believe that the BPD, which leaked a great deal of false and misleading information, would have leaked the report linking the shirt to the fibers for the world to see. Why would they change their tried and true method of police work?Why would they hold back the one piece of evidence that would prove to the world that they were competent investigators? When the BPD was such a sieve for secrets, why would there be such silence about the fibers? Unless there was no match of fibers, it makes no sense.

[elvislives]

I don't know why you insist Lin Wood would have sued if Levin had been lying. After all, he had other things to deal with at that time. I don't see why he wouldn't have picked his battles just as Bullmoose and Shill choose to do over you insistence that Levin was not lying. He might not have been lying, though, as he might not have known that the evidence did not exist. I understand that he was given the questions by the BPD. Funny we have never seen reference to this in any other piece of evidence.

Was he under oath? It is not illegal to lie, unless one is under oath which of course constitutes perjury. But lying is not a crime, unless of course it rises to the level of slander and yes, the victim would then have to prove financial damages, which in this situation did not exist.

[bullmoose]

Correct me if I'm wrong; in a sworn deposition hearing the participants are under oath, but at a police questioning nobody is under oath. When a person gives a sworn statement that is knowingly false, it is perjury; when a non sworn person or lawyer asks a question that is false, then he is just lying or carrying out questioning for the BPD.

[Coloradokares]

Correct me if I'm wrong; in a sworn deposition hearing the participants are under oath, but at a police questioning nobody is under oath. When a person gives a sworn statement that is knowingly false, it is perjury; when a non sworn person or lawyer asks a question that is false, then he is just lying or carrying out questioning for the BPD.

I can answer that!!!! Having been to a sworn deposition....Everyone including counsel is sworn. Or it was at the one I had to swear into.

[rashomon]

I don't know why you insist Lin Wood would have sued if Levin had been lying. After all, he had other things to deal with at that time. I don't see why he wouldn't have picked his battles just as Bullmoose and Shill choose to do over you insistence that Levin was not lying. He might not have been lying, though, as he might not have known that the evidence did not exist. I understand that he was given the questions by the BPD. Funny we have never seen reference to this in any other piece of evidence.
It is only logical that Lin Wood would have tried to squash whatever incriminating evidence was presented by the prosecution, and from what we know about Wood's MO, he is not a 'pick your battles' type, but resembles more an attack dog mauling a jogger when it comes to dealing with people who try to incriminate his client.

[LindaA]

At that point in time I doubt it was important enough to him to sue Levin. There are enough posts here to explain his action; I don't need to add to them.

But, NP, please don't take my words out of context and quote only part of a sentence. You have changed the meaning substantially from what I said.

[rashomon]

Rashie: On what basis would Lin Wood have sued the hell out of Levin? Maybe things work altogether differently in Germany when it comes to police questioning; yes I know Levin is a lawyer, but he was asking questions for the BPD under normal conditions. All that could happen did happen, when Levin asked did John have any explanation for how four fibers from his shirt could end up in Jonbenet's genital area; Lin Wood interjected, properly so, that before he would let John answer such a question, he would have to see the basis for them asking such a tripwire question. Levin then dropped the question and went to another; it was a trick question to try to get John Ramsey to say something incriminating, nothing else. The four fibers, if they exist at all, do not now nor did they ever match John's Israeli-made shirt. Rashie, you have never convincingly pointed anything about the US or the Colorado criminal system or the way it works to me; I think things must be very different in Germany; for you to think the criminal system over here works like you state is erroneous and silly. The only way Lin Wood and the Ramseys could sue the lawyer Levin with regards to the Imaginary black threads would be if Levin wrote and published a book stating proven lies as being fact.You know, like Synthroid Steve and his Twisterpiece; him they sued.
Moosie: I hope you have read Coloradokares' post which gives you a little basic info on how the US justice system works. :)

And btw, the fact that Levin dropped the question doesn't mean he was lying. For he was not legally required to hold the lab report right under Wood's nose on the spot.

And from what I have read on other forums, this was NOT a police questioning.

[Louisadelmar]

Moosie: I hope you have read Coloradokares' post which gives you a little basic info on how the US justice system works. :)

And btw, the fact that Levin dropped the question doesn't mean he was lying. For he was not legally required to hold the lab report right under Wood's nose on the spot.

And from what I have read on other forums, this was NOT a police questioning.

It was an interview. What have you read it was on other forums?

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/johns-transcript---atlanta-2000-vt40-sanctuary2.html
1 VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF JOHN RAMSEY
2 August 29, 2000
3 MR. KANE: Okay. Mr. Ramsey,
4 good morning.
5 MR. BECKNER: Just before we get
6 in, I want to say we appreciate your
7 willingness to sit down with us and answer
8 questions. We appreciate the opportunity.

Added: I have been deposed as well. Coloradokares is correct one is sworn in. I don't recall the lawyers being sworn as well but that may vary from state to state. Or perhaps my memory is bad. However, in a deposition "willingness' to be there doesn't enter into the picture. A judge orders it.

[Zoey]

It was an interview. What have you read it was on other forums?

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/johns-transcript---atlanta-2000-vt40-sanctuary2.html
1 VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF JOHN RAMSEY
2 August 29, 2000
3 MR. KANE: Okay. Mr. Ramsey,
4 good morning.
5 MR. BECKNER: Just before we get
6 in, I want to say we appreciate your
7 willingness to sit down with us and answer
8 questions. We appreciate the opportunity.

Added: I have been deposed as well. Coloradokares is correct one is sworn in. I don't recall the lawyers being sworn as well but that may vary from state to state. Or perhaps my memory is bad. However, in a deposition "willingness' to be there doesn't enter into the picture. A judge orders it.





A court reporter, also known as a stenographic reporter (sometimes denoted "CSR" for Certified Stenographic Reporter) is present and begins the proceedings by administering the same oath or affirmation that the deponent would take if the testimony were being given in court in front of a judge and jury. Thereafter, the court reporter makes a verbatim stenographic record of all that is said during the deposition, in the same manner that witness testimony is recorded in court. Many CSRs nowadays also make an audio or video recording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_%28law%29

I am a former CSR. Most of the depositions I attended were not ordered by a judge, but were agreed upon between the attorneys. I am confused by what people post as the Ramsey depositions, as to me they are interviews only, as none of them start out with the transcriptionist stating the witnesses have been sworn in and are under oath. This has to be the starting lines of any typed deposition.

[shill]

I can answer that!!!! Having been to a sworn deposition....Everyone including counsel is sworn. Or it was at the one I had to swear into.I've done a number of video depositions, and only the witness is sworn in, never the lawyers.

[rashomon]

It was an interview. What have you read it was on other forums?

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/johns-transcript---atlanta-2000-vt40-sanctuary2.html

1 VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF JOHN RAMSEY
2 August 29, 2000
3 MR. KANE: Okay. Mr. Ramsey,
4 good morning.
5 MR. BECKNER: Just before we get
A6 in, I want to say we appreciate your
7 willingness to sit down with us and answer
8 questions. We appreciate the opportunity.


I have read on other forums that, while the police are allowed to lie in questionings or interviews, lawyers are not allowed to lie.
And it was lawyer Levin who confronted John with the damaging fiber evidence against him.

Bullmoose: of course it is known that lawyers lie all the time (just look at Lin Wood, lol), but Levin was not acting as someoen's defense lawyer whose duty was to his client only, and not necessarily to the truth.
For Levin was acting here on behalf of the United States, which is a totally different situation.


On behalf of John and Patsy Ramsey:
4 L. LIN WOOD, Esq.
5 Law Offices of L. Lin Wood
6 2140 The Equitable Building
7 100 Peachtree Street
8 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
9 .
10 On behalf of The United States:
11 MICHAEL KANE, Esq.
12 BRUCE LEVIN, Esq.
13 MITCH MORRISSEY, Esq.
14 MARK R. BECKNER
15 TOM WICKMAN
16 TOM TRUJILLO
17 JANE HARMER

So you IDIs think that lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, was instructed to tell John Ramsey this lie?

Why was it lawyer Levin who told JR about the fibers, and not for example, Mark Beckner, who was from the police?
Why would Levin risk getting disbarred by lying to John Ramsey?


I'll put these questions over at FFJ where there are a lot of people with legal knowledge.

Another thing to consider: suppose it had come to trial. If it then was revealed that this fiber evidence never existed, the defense would have a field day with that. For they could then prove to the jury that the prosecution had tried to frame John Ramsey.
Do you really think the prosecution would have put themselves in such a situation where everything could have backfired? No way imo.

[rashomon]

To sue you need to have sustained damage of some sort. John Ramsey wasn't damaged because Levin made this claim in a private setting. I agree Wood isn't going to waste his time on this kind of thing any more than he would bother suing LHP.
Levin was acting on behalf of the United States. This doesn't sound very private to me, but pretty official.

[nuisanceposter]

I wasn't aware that the Twisterpiece was still being printed; yes its true Synthroid Steve didn't actually pay the Ramseys for his lies, his publisher did. And yes, he can keep speaking to:Whomever wants to hear him, wow, does he get invited to medical conventions to explain how the Jonbenet case made his thyroid go bonkers? He must rake it in. NP, since the fibers are Imaginary Fibers,with no evidence of existence beyond that question at JR's interview, I feel comfortable in saying they do not now or ever did match JR's shirt. If the fibers exist at all and if they were a match, I firmly believe that the BPD, which leaked a great deal of false and misleading information, would have leaked the report linking the shirt to the fibers for the world to see. Why would they change their tried and true method of police work?Why would they hold back the one piece of evidence that would prove to the world that they were competent investigators? When the BPD was such a sieve for secrets, why would there be such silence about the fibers? Unless there was no match of fibers, it makes no sense.

First off, I think you need to do a little research and find out just who exactly all the leaks were coming from. I'm saying BPD didn't leak anything, but you seem to be suffering from the delusion that they were the only ones who ever leaked info. That is not true. BPD were quite upset about their investigation being compromised more than once from leaks coming right out of Hunter's office.

It would do you some good to read Steve Thomas's book and get another pov about this case, as well. I have to say, bullmoose, I find your insistance in insulting ST every time you mention him to be a bit much. You can be a better person than that. I think the Rs are guilty but you won't find me insulting them with little nicknames every time I type their names.

Police are under no obligation to make any part of their investigation public knowledge. Just because they haven't dished out all the details you want on a piece of evidence doesn't mean they completely fabricated that evidence. I think the fact that they're saying CBI found fibers and further found these fibers to be consistent with Ramsey clothing without CBI contradicting that info says more than them not giving the RST any more detail about the fibers.

I can't believe you actually think that because more detail hasn't been given that the evidence does not exist. If you want to think that, fine, but please stop posting your opinion as fact when it has not been proven to be such at all.

[Athena]

<snip>

None of that has ever been proven to the public either way. We don't know for a fact what the deal is on these fibers, and insisting that they don't exist without knowing that to be a fact is wrong.

I do have to agree with this statement NP. We don't know either way and personally if it was proven to be the case I'd have to say I'd would rethink my position.

One problem I do have with these "black" fibers are because in the autopsy report they are described as "dark" fibers not black. The red fibers also do not necessarily have had to come from Patsy's jacket. In the interrogation seemed to me they did not even know what the material was.

The statements I have read that I do not agree with are the ones that say "prosecutors" don't lie so therefore it has to be the truth.

In a court setting I would say they don't lie or shouldn't lie because they can be sanctioned and possibly disbarred - but not during in an interrogation. JMO

[Coloradokares]

I've done a number of video depositions, and only the witness is sworn in, never the lawyers.

I have only been to one. First everything about the procedure was explained. Then everyone in attendance including counsel was sworn. I have no idea why that was. No I was not the defendant :D I am not the criminal type.

[Athena]

Never heard of a counsel being sworn in before unless they are giving a deposition. The lawyers ask the questions. They are not the ones who have to promise to tell the truth but the witnesses who are making the statements.

Legal Definition of deposition:
deposition n. the taking and recording of testimony of a witness under oath before a court reporter, in a place away from the courtroom before trial. A deposition is part of permitted pre-trial discovery (investigation), set up by an attorney for one of the parties to a lawsuit demanding the sworn testimony of the opposing party (defendant or plaintiff), a witness to an event, or an expert intended to be called at trial by the opposition. If the person requested to testify (deponent) is a party to the lawsuit or someone who works for an involved party, notice of time and place of the deposition can be given to the other side's attorney, but if the witness is an independent third party, a subpena must be served on him/her if he/she is reluctant to testify. The testimony is taken down by the court reporter, who will prepare a transcript if requested and paid for, which assists in trial preparation and can be used in trial either to contradict (impeach) or refresh the memory of the witness, or be read into the record if the witness is not available.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/deposition


Swear the Witness & Get their Contact Information
If the court reporter hasn't sworn the witness, then you should ask them to do so. The swearing of the witness is more or less the official beginning of the deposition. Some lawyers then ask the witness to "give their full name and address for the record." If the court reporter got this information before the deposition began then you don't need to do it again, unless you feel you need to have the witness provide this information under oath.

What's a Deposition all about?
Many lawyers have a whole harangue where they explain to the witness what a deposition is, and how they should tell the attorney if they don't understand a question etc. Very few lawyers reflect on what this preamble is designed to accomplish.

Think impeachment at trial.

If the witness says something in the deposition that doesn't jibe with their testimony at trial you can use the deposition to impeach the witness. Assuming that the questions asked in the deposition and at the trial are sufficiently similar, you will succeed in impeaching the witness who changes their testimony.

Sometimes, though, when you confront a trial witness with their deposition testimony they will weasel out of it by saying that they didn't really understand the question. So you need to "seal off that exit" by making sure that the deponent knows what the ground rules are. The ground rules are: (1) they are under oath and have to give accurate answers to questions; (2) if they answer a question they will be assumed to understand it, so (3) if they don't fully understand a question they should say so

http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/Litigation/Deposition%20Tips.htm#A5

[Miss Marple]

Fiber Evidence. Dark fibers were reportedly found in JBR's underpants. Internet poster koldkase summarizes conflicting claims about this evidence. While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/John%20Ramsey#IncriminatingEvidence

[Ames]

Fiber Evidence. Dark fibers were reportedly found in JBR's underpants. Internet poster koldkase summarizes conflicting claims about this evidence. While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/John%20Ramsey#IncriminatingEvidence

AND...IF they were lying about the fibers, and the case actually made it to court...the defense would have had a field day with that, and it would have probably ended in an aquittal because of it. So, why would they risk that happening. IMO...they were being truthful about John's fibers.

[Louisadelmar]

AND...IF they were lying about the fibers, and the case actually made it to court...the defense would have had a field day with that, and it would have probably ended in an aquittal because of it. So, why would they risk that happening. IMO...they were being truthful about John's fibers.


Oh I don't agree with that. No defense attorney would want to plant that thought in a juror's mind and without a report to back it up the prosecution couldn't introduce it.

[Louisadelmar]

Fiber Evidence. Dark fibers were reportedly found in JBR's underpants. Internet poster koldkase summarizes conflicting claims about this evidence. While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/John%20Ramsey#IncriminatingEvidence

And how often has a lawyer been disbarred or even reprimanded for misrepresenting a statement as part of investigating a case? I think Levin felt pretty safe...

[rashomon]

Oh I don't agree with that. No defense attorney would want to plant that thought in a juror's mind and without a report to back it up the prosecution couldn't introduce it.
Loisadelmar, you missed the point. For in the (hypothetical) scenario outlined in Ames' post, the defense would actually have found out that no lab report existed which mentioned the incriminating fiber evidence against John Ramsey.
So it was not about planting a thought in jurors' minds, but about confronting jurors with facts.

For the defense has access to the evidence which the prosecution is going to present at trial.
Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confronted John Ramsey with the fiber evidence.
Do you think the government would have run the risk of having their case thrown out of court by presenting evidence which did not exist?

[rashomon]

Oh I don't agree with that. No defense attorney would want to plant that thought in a juror's mind and without a report to back it up the prosecution couldn't introduce it.
Loisadelmar, you missed the point. For in the (hypothetical) scenario outlined in Ames' post, the defense would actually have found out that no lab report existed which mentioned the incriminating fiber evidence against John Ramsey.
So it was not about planting a thought in jurors' minds, but about confronting jurors with facts.

For the defense has access to the evidence which the prosecution is going to present at trial.
Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confronted John Ramsey with the fiber evidence.
Do you think the government would have run the risk of having their case thrown out of court by presenting evidence which did not exist?

[Ames]

Loisadelmar, you missed the point. For in the (hypothetical) scenario outlined in Ames' post, the defense would actually have found out that no lab report existed which mentioned the incriminating fiber evidence against John Ramsey.
So it was not about planting a thought in jurors' minds, but about confronting jurors with facts.

For the defense has access to the evidence which the prosecution is going to present at trial.
Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confronted John Ramsey with the fiber evidence.
Do you think the government would have run the risk of having their case thrown out of court by presenting evidence which did not exist?

You are right on the money...thats exactly the point that I was trying o make, in my scenario outlined in my post about the case going to court.

[rashomon]

Oh I don't agree with that. No defense attorney would want to plant that thought in a juror's mind and without a report to back it up the prosecution couldn't introduce it.
But that's exactly the point: why should Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confront John Ramsey with such incriminating fiber evidence without a report to back it up?
For in case of a trial, the prosecution would have looked really bad if they had to admit that no fiber evidence against John ever existed, and any defense attorney worth his salt would have had a field day with that.

[Ames]

But that's exactly the point: why should Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confront John Ramsey with such incriminating fiber evidence without a report to back it up?
For in case of a trial, the prosecution would have looked really bad if they had to admit that no fiber evidence against John ever existed, and any defense attorney worth his salt would have had a field day with that.


Oh yes, they would have had a field day....and most of us thought that OJ's trial was a circus....if the Ramsey's had of went to court, the whole thing would have been laughable, because if that fiber evidence had of been brought up, and in fact there WAS NO fiber evidence (from John's shirt), the case would have been over right there and then. It totally would have gotten thrown out....OR there would have been an aquittal. That is, after the jurors quit laughing long enough to vote. Why would they risk having it thrown out or an aquittal? Fibers were found from John's shirt...there is no doubt in my mind. It would not have been brought up, if that wasn't the case. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

But that's exactly the point: why should Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confront John Ramsey with such incriminating fiber evidence without a report to back it up?
[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique

The word "interview" refers to a non-accusatory question and answer session with a witness, victim or a suspect. In addition to standard investigative questions, structured "behavior provoking" questions are asked to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed. This structured procedure is referred to as a Behavior Analysis Interview or BAI.

[Ames]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique

The word "interview" refers to a non-accusatory question and answer session with a witness, victim or a suspect. In addition to standard investigative questions, structured "behavior provoking" questions are asked to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed. This structured procedure is referred to as a Behavior Analysis Interview or BAI.

But it says that it is widely used by LAW ENFORCEMENT....didn't say anything about lawyers.

[Louisadelmar]

But it says that it is widely used by LAW ENFORCEMENT....didn't say anything about lawyers.

True. But it does explain 'why' which was Rashomon's question.

Interestingly, in looking up the acceptable use of deception in interrogations I find reference to police but I also find reference to 'investigators' and 'interrogating officers.' I wonder how narrowly it would be interpreted since the lawyers were interviewing John in an investigatory capacity.

[Ames]

True. But it does explain 'why' which was Rashomon's question.

Interestingly, in looking up the acceptable use of deception in interrogations I find reference to police but I also find reference to 'investigators' and 'interrogating officers.' I wonder how narrowly it would be interpreted since the lawyers were interviewing John in an investigatory capacity.


I understand what you are saying....but, still...why would they jeopardize their own case, by stating a flat out lie? As rashomon stated, the defense would find out about the lie, and then it would be "case dismissed"...or maybe an aquittal. Why would they risk that?? If they wanted John so bad...why sabatoge it before it even goes to trial?? (IMO)

[Coloradokares]

True. But it does explain 'why' which was Rashomon's question.

Interestingly, in looking up the acceptable use of deception in interrogations I find reference to police but I also find reference to 'investigators' and 'interrogating officers.' I wonder how narrowly it would be interpreted since the lawyers were interviewing John in an investigatory capacity.

The distinction is huge....Lawyers are officers of the court. That is what can lead to their disbarrment

[shill]

But that's exactly the point: why should Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confront John Ramsey with such incriminating fiber evidence without a report to back it up?
For in case of a trial, the prosecution would have looked really bad if they had to admit that no fiber evidence against John ever existed, and any defense attorney worth his salt would have had a field day with that. Lawyers can ask all sorts of questions that are out of line, but they may never make it in court for the jury to hear. The deposition is reviewed by a judge, and he determines if it is admissible in court to present to the Jurors before playback. I did testimony playback in court, and I would have to mute the volume during the parts that were not admissible. The jury would stair at a TV monitor of the witness talking but no sound for minutes at a time.
So in a deposition, lawyers can make accusations that are false or misleading, the defense lawyer objects, and the judge decides if it’s admissible.

[Louisadelmar]

The distinction is huge....Lawyers are officers of the court. That is what can lead to their disbarrment

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/officer-of-the-court.htm
Officer Of The Court
People who are appointed in the proper functioning of the judicial system like judges,clerks,lawyers and other law enforcement officers. They make sure that law and order is maintained and that the people of the society get justice.

[nuisanceposter]

Read the context of the interview...there is no reason to believe Levin is fabricating the fiber evidence, other than the IDI cannot tolerate the idea that there may be fiber evidence to connect the Rs to the crime scene. This is hardly a tough interview where the atty asking questions is grilling the subject and trying to trap him in his own statements. They going as easy and as soft on the Rs as possible.

Dropping the line of questioning to not give more info to the RST is not the same as admitting that there is no evidence and Levin and the BPD with the help of CBI made it all up. That's really reaching.

The fibers in question were said to have been "chemically and microscopically consistant with" the fibers of the jacket Patsy wore that evening, that she was still wearing the next day. Perhaps the red dye used caused more fragility in the fibers, and that's why more red are seen than any other color. Perhaps the fiber evidence linking John to the scene hadn't been identified as John's yet when ST wrote his book (my copy says copyright 2000 - and gee, that's the same year the Rs were asked about the fibers...) and that's why he doesn't mention them.

There is no conspiracy to bring the Rs down and frame them for the murder.

[Athena]

But that's exactly the point: why should Lawyer Levin, acting on behalf of the United States, confront John Ramsey with such incriminating fiber evidence without a report to back it up?
For in case of a trial, the prosecution would have looked really bad if they had to admit that no fiber evidence against John ever existed, and any defense attorney worth his salt would have had a field day with that.

Discovery does not have to be shared until AFTER someone has been arrested not before. None of us know either way if this evidence really exists. JMO

[Ames]

Discovery does not have to be shared until AFTER someone has been arrested not before. None of us know either way if this evidence really exists. JMO

Yes, but regardless of WHEN it is shared...if the lawyer was lying about the fibers to John...that would have been made known at the trial...therefore, not helping the prosecution's case....and the Ramsey's would have been guaranteed an acquittal...or for the case just to have been thrown out altogether. Why would they risk that, by bringing up fibers that didn't exist? Sounds like the makings for a mistrial to me. (IMO)

[Eagle1]

The thing is, TWW1, we have given you a couple of cases, -- at least one -- in which someone was not only arrested abut also convicted on the basis of fiber evidence.

As for the black fibers, we have no evidence that they ever did exist -- just the reference to them during JR's interrogation. SO whyshould we believe they do exist?

The Fibers May Have Been Dark Blue, and the college blanket contained some of both dark blue and black, but LindaA may be right that it was just an interrogation question.

This black hood that pedophiles sometimes use, of course could be a source of the fibers, if there really were dark fibers and if she really was wiped down.

And wiping wouldn't remove DNA, would it? Nor would JR think it would. He may not be perfect but surely he's smarter than that.

[shill]

...there is no reason to believe Levin is fabricating the fiber evidence, other than the IDI cannot tolerate the idea that there may be fiber evidence to connect the Rs to the crime scene.
It's not an IDI thing. If they have those alleged fibers, IMO it's a smoking gun and John is most certainly guilty. Those fibers are certainly the nail in the coffin to convict him. So armed with this evidence, what stopped them from hanging John?

[Louisadelmar]

Read the context of the interview...there is no reason to believe Levin is fabricating the fiber evidence, other than the IDI cannot tolerate the idea that there may be fiber evidence to connect the Rs to the crime scene. This is hardly a tough interview where the atty asking questions is grilling the subject and trying to trap him in his own statements. They going as easy and as soft on the Rs as possible.

Dropping the line of questioning to not give more info to the RST is not the same as admitting that there is no evidence and Levin and the BPD with the help of CBI made it all up. That's really reaching.

The fibers in question were said to have been "chemically and microscopically consistant with" the fibers of the jacket Patsy wore that evening, that she was still wearing the next day. Perhaps the red dye used caused more fragility in the fibers, and that's why more red are seen than any other color. Perhaps the fiber evidence linking John to the scene hadn't been identified as John's yet when ST wrote his book (my copy says copyright 2000 - and gee, that's the same year the Rs were asked about the fibers...) and that's why he doesn't mention them.

There is no conspiracy to bring the Rs down and frame them for the murder.

The Ramseys sent their clothes shortly after they were requested. I believe it was early 1998.The results saying Patsy's red fibers were on the tape were available in time to be included in the June 1998 VIP presentation. Thomas claims he continued to receive information on the case for some time after he resigned in August 1998. How is it possible that such a blockbuster piece of evidence gets ignored? One would think at a minimun he would include it in the paperback edition. Why is Levin's question the only mention of these results?

[Ames]

It's not an IDI thing. If they have those alleged fibers, IMO it's a smoking gun and John is most certainly guilty. Those fibers are certainly the nail in the coffin to convict him. So armed with this evidence, what stopped them from hanging John?

Shill, would you mind posting your scenario of what happened again? I know that its on one of these threads somewhere...but, if you would save me from searching for it...I would really, really appreciate it. Just give it to me in a nutshell...if you don't mind. TIA

[Coloradokares]

It's not an IDI thing. If they have those alleged fibers, IMO it's a smoking gun and John is most certainly guilty. Those fibers are certainly the nail in the coffin to convict him. So armed with this evidence, what stopped them from hanging John?


Just one humble opinion. DA Alex Hunter... who wanted airtight or confession. Fiber Evidence is still not airtight. Part of a puzzle perhaps
but not airtight. And you have not seen a DA yet that is able to
feel they have enough to convict based on one factor of our judicial sytem.
Reasonable doubt. Alex Hunter and everyone since wants Airtight no wiggle room or confession. DA Lacey brought Karr back based on what. Confession. Do you have any knowledge of the the prosecution record of Boulder County. 3 grand juries in 20 years none of which has indicted.. Ok we'll see what happens on the Midyette case.....But I am not holding my breath.

[andU]

First off, I think you need to do a little research and find out just who exactly all the leaks were coming from. I'm saying BPD didn't leak anything, but you seem to be suffering from the delusion that they were the only ones who ever leaked info. That is not true. BPD were quite upset about their investigation being compromised more than once from leaks coming right out of Hunter's office.

It would do you some good to read Steve Thomas's book and get another pov about this case, as well. I have to say, bullmoose, I find your insistance in insulting ST every time you mention him to be a bit much. You can be a better person than that. I think the Rs are guilty but you won't find me insulting them with little nicknames every time I type their names.

Police are under no obligation to make any part of their investigation public knowledge. Just because they haven't dished out all the details you want on a piece of evidence doesn't mean they completely fabricated that evidence. I think the fact that they're saying CBI found fibers and further found these fibers to be consistent with Ramsey clothing without CBI contradicting that info says more than them not giving the RST any more detail about the fibers.

I can't believe you actually think that because more detail hasn't been given that the evidence does not exist. If you want to think that, fine, but please stop posting your opinion as fact when it has not been proven to be such at all.

The BPD were upset because their case was compromised? That's a joke! ... the case was compromised when BPD stepped foot on the Ramsey's property! .... and much more after that! For pete's sake... they bungled this case, the leaks could further compromise, but they weren't the sole of it.

[andU]

True. But it does explain 'why' which was Rashomon's question.

Interestingly, in looking up the acceptable use of deception in interrogations I find reference to police but I also find reference to 'investigators' and 'interrogating officers.' I wonder how narrowly it would be interpreted since the lawyers were interviewing John in an investigatory capacity.

I may be wrong here, but I thought an investigative interview/interrogation would be conducted by LE, with the attorney present (the attorney would advise the person whether or not to answer a certain question). What authority would attorneys have to conduct such an investigation?

[nuisanceposter]

Just pointing out that although there may have been leaks from BPD, there were also leaks from the DA's office.


http://www.courttv.com/archive/national/1999/0216/jonbenet_ctv.html

According to excerpts of Perfect Murder, Perfect Town printed in the "Denver Rocky Mountain News," Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter told tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro early in the investigation that he hated then-lead investigator John Eller. Handing Shapiro Eller's resume, Hunter reportedly told Shapiro that the investigator was worth investigating.

The Boulder police chief removed Eller from the case 10 months after the investigation began. Eller resigned from the police department last March. A local Colorado TV station also reported that one excerpt suggested Hunter was such a willing source of information for Shapiro, he once called John and Patsey Ramsey's defense lawyer Bryan Morgan in front of the reporter to get an answer to a question.

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," Shapiro was quoted as saying. "The DA was calling Ramsey's criminal defense lawyer right in front of me to get the information that I had asked for."

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, also suggests that investigators knew about Hunter's arrangement with Shapiro and thought that the relationship hurt the progress of the investigation. The book reportedly says that one detective wore a body wire and secretly taped Shapiro as he described Hunter's accessibility.

The alleged wire-tapping incident — and Hunter's alleged leaks to the press — disturbed and frustrated several investigators, including former Boulder detective Steve Thomas, who resigned from the Ramsey case and department and accused the district attorney of impeding the investigation.



http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/11/071811.php

There were a few heretofore unknown scoops (at least unknown by me) in the Jonbenet murder investigation revealed in Thomas book. I had no idea the Boulder police went out and hired their own lawyers to advise them on the investigation. Then again, the DA's office hired their own investigators and neither scenario makes much sense to me. I also had no idea that Alex Hunter had been so cozy with Globe tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro.

Schiller mentioned this Shapiro fellow in his book quite a bit and as an aside, what a character this guy has to be. Sort of a tabloid Colombo as I like to think of him, he managed to get himself all cozy with both the DA and the police in this case, so much so that Hunter regularly phoned the fellow direct to his cell phone and the Boulder cops even taped a confession by Shapiro that he was in cahoots with the DA's office. Shapiro managed to weasel in all cozy like with some other of the Ramsey witnesses, bumbling along, even joining the Ramsey church at one point, professing to a desire to convert to Christianity. What a hoot! I wonder how all these folks feel now that their rather weird association with a Globe tabloid reporter is known to the world.

[Coloradokares]

The BPD were upset because their case was compromised? That's a joke! ... the case was compromised when BPD stepped foot on the Ramsey's property! .... and much more after that! For pete's sake... they bungled this case, the leaks could further compromise, but they weren't the sole of it.

With all due respect this case was being compromised before the police arrived. Either with staging to deflect suspicion from themselves by the Ramseys themselves or by a very meticulous intruder bent on framing the Ramseys for the murder of their own daughter. Greater minds than mine have seen the evidence of staging and a crime that could not have gone the way the evidence suggested. However the BPD should have been able to secure the crime scene upon arrival and that would have gone a long way to proving the absolute truth of the rest. However if you were to come to Boulder and stroll the Boulevards and interview those who would speak.... I think you'd find most believe it was compromised before the arrival of the officers. Do not discount however the role the DA's office played in where we are today that is just my opinion.

[shill]

Just one humble opinion. DA Alex Hunter... who wanted airtight or confession. Fiber Evidence is still not airtight. Part of a puzzle perhaps
but not airtight. And you have not seen a DA yet that is able to
feel they have enough to convict based on one factor of our judicial sytem.
Reasonable doubt. Alex Hunter and everyone since wants Airtight no wiggle room or confession. DA Lacey brought Karr back based on what. Confession. Do you have any knowledge of the the prosecution record of Boulder County. 3 grand juries in 20 years none of which has indicted.. Ok we'll see what happens on the Midyette case.....But I am not holding my breath.
I'm saying that that particular fiber evidence is the nail in the coffin. According to most RDIs, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the Ramseys. I believe that is why the RDIs are confident the Ramseys did it. If there are fibers from John's Israeli made shirt in JBs crotch area, that's enough to make me flip and convict John and IMO makes for a airtight case that they have no excuse to not bring to trial.
I know you keep saying they want a confession, but if that was true, no one would ever go to prison.

[Louisadelmar]

I'm saying that that particular fiber evidence is the nail in the coffin. According to most RDIs, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the Ramseys. I believe that is why the RDIs are confident the Ramseys did it. If there are fibers from John's Israeli made shirt in JBs crotch area, that's enough to make me flip and convict John and IMO makes for a airtight case that they have no excuse to not bring to trial.
I know you keep saying they want a confession, but if that was true, no one would ever go to prison.

I agree. To have John's fibers found in JonBenet's crotch would have been absolutely HUGE evidence against him. I (and I think most IDIs) would have certainly changed my mind.

[Coloradokares]

I'm saying that that particular fiber evidence is the nail in the coffin. According to most RDIs, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the Ramseys. I believe that is why the RDIs are confident the Ramseys did it. If there are fibers from John's Israeli made shirt in JBs crotch area, that's enough to make me flip and convict John and IMO makes for a airtight case that they have no excuse to not bring to trial.
I know you keep saying they want a confession, but if that was true, no one would ever go to prison.

Shill what I am going to say is you just grasped a glimpse into the very essense of what Boulderites have lived with in seeing there was never going to come a time the DA was going to allow for an arrest and to bring this matter to trial without a confession . These fibers are IN MY OPINION not a figament of anyones imagination and now you know why there is such a public outcry for the Governor to intervene and appoint an office of special presecutor. BOULDER Valley is gobsmacked that the grandjury did not indict that alone...... even the Ramseys expected an indictment. It deserves as I say to go to that courtroom bring out the evidence and let the festivities begin and the experts be called. You ever hear of connected Shill. How many people do you know who calls go out on behalf of treat them with kid gloves. Its been ten years. Its time to put it up you know Deal or no deal....and that will never happen with Lacey in there either. JMO

[Louisadelmar]

So why was there no hue and cry about these black fibers? Why was the focus on Patsy?

[Coloradokares]

So why was there no hue and cry about these black fibers? Why was the focus on Patsy?There was at least here when the news broke about them....See that is what is so puzzling these fibers have been discussed since before the grandjury ....yet some try to deny the existence of. I mean would they know the fibers were from Isreal if they didn't exist...

[Ames]

So why was there no hue and cry about these black fibers? Why was the focus on Patsy?

Personally, for me....I think that Patsy is the one that flew into a rage and injured JB to the point of no return....so, she got John to help her stage the scene, and help to cover it up. But, thats just my opinion....I believe that they are BOTH involved...but, it was Patsy's rage that severely injured her, first. (IMO)

[Ames]

<snipped>
I mean would they know the fibers were from Isreal if they didn't exist...

VERY good point!!!

[Louisadelmar]

There was at least here when the news broke about them....See that is what is so puzzling these fibers have been discussed since before the grandjury ....yet some try to deny the existence of. I mean would they know the fibers were from Isreal if they didn't exist...

Probably because it was mentioned in the 2000 interview.

[shill]

There was at least here when the news broke about them....See that is what is so puzzling these fibers have been discussed since before the grandjury ....yet some try to deny the existence of. I mean would they know the fibers were from Isreal if they didn't exist...
There is no mention of those crotch fibers being from Israel.
But we do know John's shirt was made in Israel.

I choose to believe the mentioning of the fibers being a match to Johns shirt was a BLUFF, and a bad one they got called on.
You can choose to believe there is a secret conspiracy to protect the Ramseys and no matter what evidence might still surface, they won't take them to trial until they confess.

[lsu]

So why was there no hue and cry about these black fibers? Why was the focus on Patsy?

Wasn't it said that JB wore black pants to the party? Were they velvet pants? If so - I know my daughters have worn black/dark colored clothing that totally faded on their legs/body. Especially certain material. And yes - that's after the clothing had been washed a few times. Even now certain material will leave dark fibers on their underarms. Anyway - when they said it left fibers on the 'crotch' area - maybe it wasn't IN the crotch - just around the panty area - hence the dark color of the tight legging-pants rubbing off.

just a thought...

[andU]

With all due respect this case was being compromised before the police arrived. Either with staging to deflect suspicion from themselves by the Ramseys themselves or by a very meticulous intruder bent on framing the Ramseys for the murder of their own daughter. Greater minds than mine have seen the evidence of staging and a crime that could not have gone the way the evidence suggested. However the BPD should have been able to secure the crime scene upon arrival and that would have gone a long way to proving the absolute truth of the rest. However if you were to come to Boulder and stroll the Boulevards and interview those who would speak.... I think you'd find most believe it was compromised before the arrival of the officers. Do not discount however the role the DA's office played in where we are today that is just my opinion.


I agree with staging (IMO: intruder(s))... but since the BPD were the first on the scene and didn't secure it, they would be (IMO) the first bunglers of the case. I don't count the staging as a bungle, that was done with intent, perhaps to point to Ramsey's, the perp was determined to put John 'in his place' and cause him as much pain as possible.... so: kill his daughter, violate her, and implicate Johnny-boy.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Miss Marple :
Fiber Evidence. Dark fibers were reportedly found in JBR's underpants. Internet poster koldkase summarizes conflicting claims about this evidence. While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Joh...natingEvidence

Wood is also a lawyer and can't lie...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/12/lkl.00.html
[…]
WOOD: That was invented. We know that there were black fibers found, they claim, but there were no black fibers found in the areas of Jon Benet's underwear, as claimed in that question. The Boulder Police Department did not even ask for the Ramseys to provide the department with the clothes they were wearing the night of Jon Benet's murder for over one year. They couldn't even remember what they had worn. They had to go back and look at photographs to try and reconstruct what they wore that night.
[…]


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=134070#post134070
#10
The Punisher: your info was of great help.
None of the IDIs over there could refute it, and it sure brought an end to their nonsenical allegation that lawyer Levin 'lied' to the John Ramsey about the fiber evidence. Thanks a bunch!

Dream on …

[nuisanceposter]

The bottom line is, Levin was working as attorney on behalf of the United States. The US has no need to lie to JR to get a confession from him, and doing so would jeopardize Levin being disbarred. I think that says a lot more than him dropping the line of questioning rather than giving the Rs more information about it. He was under no obligation to give the RST any details about their investigation, and he isn't the only person who has ended a line of questioning in an interview with a prime suspect rather than give out more info. You guys act like this is the first time any lawyer anywhere has ever done that, so therefore it must indicate he was lying. Hardly.

How does Wood know whether there were fibers found or not? It doesn't sound like the RST was privy to the reports CBI sent back to BPD, so I don't see how he's in any position to say what does and does not exist.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Miss Marple :
Fiber Evidence. Dark fibers were reportedly found in JBR's underpants. Internet poster koldkase summarizes conflicting claims about this evidence. While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Joh...natingEvidence

Wood is also a lawyer and can't lie...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/12/lkl.00.html
[…]
WOOD: That was invented. We know that there were black fibers found, they claim, but there were no black fibers found in the areas of Jon Benet's underwear, as claimed in that question. The Boulder Police Department did not even ask for the Ramseys to provide the department with the clothes they were wearing the night of Jon Benet's murder for over one year. They couldn't even remember what they had worn. They had to go back and look at photographs to try and reconstruct what they wore that night.
[…]


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=134070#post134070
#10
The Punisher: your info was of great help.
None of the IDIs over there could refute it, and it sure brought an end to their nonsenical allegation that lawyer Levin 'lied' to the John Ramsey about the fiber evidence. Thanks a bunch!

Dream on …
Believe me, if I were a dreamer, I'd certainly not post on a JBR forum.
I'm interested in facts, and the IDIs over here did not take into account hat Levin acted as a laywer on behalf of the United States, i. e. NOT as a defense laywer whose duty is to his client only (like e. g. Lin Wood). That was the point. Levin's role was totally different.

And to me, it sure ended the discussion about Levin allegedly lying to John Ramsey.
Notice how the IDIs now have suddenly shifted the topic to the police botching the crime scene, allegedly collecting the wrong fibers etc.?

[LindaA]

Believe me, if I were a dreamer, I'd certainly not post on a JBR forum.
I'm interested in facts, and the IDIs over here did not take into account hat Levin acted as a laywer on behalf of the United States, i. e. NOT as a defense laywer whose duty is to his client only (like e. g. Lin Wood). That was the point. Levin's role was totally different.

And to me, it sure ended the discussion about Levin allegedly lying to John Ramsey.
Notice how the IDIs now have suddenly shifted the topic to the police botching the crime scene, allegedly collecting the wrong fibers etc.?

I still say that Levin got his questions from LE. He had no idea what they actually had as evidence and what they didn't have. Thus, when challenged he dropped that line of questioning. As has been posted here numerous times, unlike the red fibers attributed to PR, no other reference to the black fibers exists. How many times does it have to be posted?

And wouldn't it be more correct to say Levin acted as a lawyer for Boulder or the state of Colorado as this was not a federal case?

"he had no need to lie"? What's that supposed to mean? It is standard procedure to lie to a suspect about the existence of incriminating evidence. LE got around it by having Levin lie unknowlingly, IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Believe me, if I were a dreamer, I'd certainly not post on a JBR forum.
I'm interested in facts, and the IDIs over here did not take into account hat Levin acted as a laywer on behalf of the United States, i. e. NOT as a defense laywer whose duty is to his client only (like e. g. Lin Wood). That was the point. Levin's role was totally different.

And to me, it sure ended the discussion about Levin allegedly lying to John Ramsey.
Notice how the IDIs now have suddenly shifted the topic to the police botching the crime scene, allegedly collecting the wrong fibers etc.?

1. Lin Wood is subject to the exact same rules of ethics Levin is subject to. I don't know why you think he isn't.

2. You think every time a thread veers in a new direction it's because one side has "brought an end" to the other's beliefs?

3. Why would Steve Thomas ignore John's fibers in his daughter's crotch but believe Patsy's fibers in the paint tray meant she had killed her daughter. He was still on the case when the results came back.

14 Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Well, you know
15 what, I'm just confusing the issue. I'm
16 going to drop that line of questioning and
17 just ask you, did you have occasion to
18 actually see the CBI report that indicated
19 that there was a likely match for Patsy's
20 blazer with the acrylic fiber found on the
21 duct tape?
22 A. Not that I recall. Detective
23 Trujillo, who was in charge of all the
24 evidence and forensic testing in this case,
25 he and Wickman verbally offered that to the
159
1 rest of the detective team.
2 Q. All right. So you never
3 personally saw a report with that result or
4 that conclusion?
5 A. I'm relying on a fellow officer.


4. I am still waiting for a list of lawyers disbarred because they lied to a suspect while conducting an investigation. Has it ever happened? I checked around and couldn't find anything although I did find Prosecutor Carmen Marino. His own state supreme court said about him that they found an "aggravated example" of prosecutorial misconduct by Marino. But they weren't the only ones; "Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Daniel Gaul said Marino should be criminally prosecuted for the abuses.
"It's nothing but one deceitful act after another," Gaul said. "To permit anyone to be put to death after being prosecuted by Carmen Marino would be so ethically inappropriate you'd almost be culpable yourself."

So was Marino disbarred? Actually, no. Instead there is an award given annually in his name awards to "outstanding members of the law enforcement community." "“Carmen Marino and John T. Corrigan set the standard for what law enforcement should be,” said Mason."

And you think Levin is worried about being disbarred because he fudged the truth as part of a standard interviewing technique?

[Louisadelmar]

I still say that Levin got his questions from LE. He had no idea what they actually had as evidence and what they didn't have. Thus, when challenged he dropped that line of questioning. As has been posted here numerous times, unlike the red fibers attributed to PR, no other reference to the black fibers exists. How many times does it have to be posted?

And wouldn't it be more correct to say Levin acted as a lawyer for Boulder or the state of Colorado as this was not a federal case?

"he had no need to lie"? What's that supposed to mean? It is standard procedure to lie to a suspect about the existence of incriminating evidence. LE got around it by having Levin lie unknowlingly, IMO.


I agree.

I wondered about the "On behalf of the United States" too. I would have expected "On behalf of the people of Colorado." Perhaps it has something to do with being out of his jurisdiction?

[andU]

Ok, maybe I'm confused. Isn't there a difference between an 'interview' and a sworn depo or testimony under oath? I'm not so sure that everyone is sworn in that is 'interviewed' during an investigation, are they? But, wait, these are attorneys that are conducting the 'interviews', correct? Why would they need to be sworn in unless it was some type of preliminary hearing? ...and why were the attorneys conducting these interviews opposed to LE?

[andU]

Alrighty, then.... I see Levin was appointed as one of two special deputy prosecutors in the case.... so I would say he was 'questioning' not 'interviewing' and unless it was during a pre-trial thing, they probably were not sworn under oath.

[bullmoose]

Believe me, if I were a dreamer, I'd certainly not post on a JBR forum.
I'm interested in facts, and the IDIs over here did not take into account hat Levin acted as a laywer on behalf of the United States, i. e. NOT as a defense laywer whose duty is to his client only (like e. g. Lin Wood). That was the point. Levin's role was totally different.

And to me, it sure ended the discussion about Levin allegedly lying to John Ramsey.
Notice how the IDIs now have suddenly shifted the topic to the police botching the crime scene, allegedly collecting the wrong fibers etc.?

I think I am going to have to weave a flying carpet out of the Imaginary Fibers that Rashoman loves so much; of course flying carpets aren't real either, so it should be a good fit.:biggrin:

[shill]

Police bluff (lie to) suspects into confessions all the time. And they're usually quite proud of it when they pull it off.

[LindaA]

LindaA, I don't know how you can say "the evidence did not exist." You don't know that for a fact.



I must ask you to stop misquoting me by taking a phrase out of context.

[Eagle1]

Read the context of the interview...there is no reason to believe Levin is fabricating the fiber evidence, other than the IDI cannot tolerate the idea that there may be fiber evidence to connect the Rs to the crime scene. This is hardly a tough interview where the atty asking questions is grilling the subject and trying to trap him in his own statements. They going as easy and as soft on the Rs as possible.

Dropping the line of questioning to not give more info to the RST is not the same as admitting that there is no evidence and Levin and the BPD with the help of CBI made it all up. That's really reaching.

The fibers in question were said to have been "chemically and microscopically consistant with" the fibers of the jacket Patsy wore that evening, that she was still wearing the next day. Perhaps the red dye used caused more fragility in the fibers, and that's why more red are seen than any other color. Perhaps the fiber evidence linking John to the scene hadn't been identified as John's yet when ST wrote his book (my copy says copyright 2000 - and gee, that's the same year the Rs were asked about the fibers...) and that's why he doesn't mention them.

There is no conspiracy to bring the Rs down and frame them for the murder.

You probably have a source for "red" fibers? ST just says "dark fibers".

I saw that last night while looking for his discussion of the dictionary picture in the paperback version. Everyone says it's pg 263 in the hardback. We don't know if he means the fibers were blue or black or what. The college blanket in the suitcase would have had some of both, also gold, don't know about red. You could be right or, There just might be fibers consistent with the jacket in all sorts of garments, for all we know. We don't seem to have any fiber experts who'd know where that fabric came from and how often it may be used or for what.

[sweetcharlotte]

So why was there no hue and cry about these black fibers? Why was the focus on Patsy?


IMO - there were no black fibers found on JonBenet. It was a ploy by BPD - via Levin - to get a "confession" from JR. Fishing expedition, in other words.

JMO

[Limaes]

RE: the original question..."Why is Everyone so Certain that JonBenet's Body was 'Wiped Down'?

Imo, the fibers being found in her crotch area (I do believe they exist) got there when she was wiped down rather than during any sexually related contact.

I think that PR was the person who wiped JB down but it was JR who obtained the cloth from somewhere in the laundry, wet it under the tap, then as he was making his way back to the basement he absent-mindedly wiped his hand on his shirt to remove the excess water which caused the fibers from his shirt to stick to his hand. He then unknowingly transfered them to the cloth which resulted in the fibers again being transfered to JB.

This is just my own personal opinion.

[LindaA]

Wasn't JBR wearing black velvet pants on Christmas? Has it ever been proved that those fibers -- if they exist -- didn't come from those pants? I don't think the question ever came up, because there were no black fibers. MOO.

[rashomon]

Wasn't JBR wearing black velvet pants on Christmas? Has it ever been proved that those fibers -- if they exist -- didn't come from those pants? I don't think the question ever came up, because there were no black fibers. MOO.
Black wool fibers consistent with those of the shirt John had been wearing to the Whites' party were found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear. In addition to these black fibers, blue terry-cloth type cotton fibers were found in her genitals. The source of these blue fibers could not be found, but it has been theorized by internet posters they might have belonged to John's bathrobe which Pam Paugh removed from the house.
I dont recall black velvet fibers on the body being mentioned anywhere.
Does anyone else?

Sources: LE interviews with the Ramseys and Bonita Papers.

jmo

[Evening2]

Black wool fibers consistent with those of the shirt John had been wearing to the Whites' party were found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear. In addition to these black fibers, blue terry-cloth type cotton fibers were found in her genitals. The source of these blue fibers could not be found, but it has been theorized by internet posters they might have belonged to John's bathrobe which Pam Paugh removed from the house.
I dont recall black velvet fibers on the body being mentioned anywhere.
Does anyone else?

Sources: LE interviews with the Ramseys and Bonita Papers.

jmo

Rash, are you saying that blue "terry-cloth" type fibers were found in JonBenet's genitals according to the interviews with the Ramseys?

I'd also like to mention that internet posters have theorized that the "blue" fibers found on JonBenet's genitals came from the same blue sweatpants Bill McReynolds wore in his press interview the day after JonBenet's body was found.

[rashomon]

Rash, are you saying that blue "terry-cloth" type fibers were found in JonBenet's genitals according to the interviews with the Ramseys?

It's been a while since I last read the Bonita papers, but if memory serves, it says the blue fibers resembled a washcloth.

jmo

[Evening2]

It's been a while since I last read the Bonita papers, but if memory serves, it says the blue fibers resembled a washcloth.

jmo

Well, good! I just wanted clarification on your post which left it up for grabs as to just WHERE that came from, either the factual interviews or the infamous Bonita Papers. Thanks for the clarification. I think we can dismiss that the blue fibers were, indeed, terry cloth. :hat:

[rashomon]

Well, good! I just wanted clarification on your post which left it up for grabs as to just WHERE that came from, either the factual interviews or the infamous Bonita Papers. Thanks for the clarification. I think we can dismiss that the blue fibers were, indeed, terry cloth. :hat:
I have just looked up what it says verbatim in the Bonita Papers:
Dr. Meyer stated that it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been cleaned, or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area."
While the B. Papers do contain some mistakes, imo it doesn't help to simply claim that everything in them which doesn't suit one's theory must be wrong info.

jmo

[Evening2]

I have just looked up what it says verbatim in the Bonita Papers:

While the B. Papers do contain some mistakes, imo it doesn't help to simply claim that everything in them which doesn't suit one's theory must be wrong info.

jmo

Thanks for posting what Dr. Meyers said. Note he said nothing about "terry-cloth"? I didn't "think" I had ever read anything about terry-cloth fibers. I take it no match to those blue fibers have yet been found.

The Bonita Papers have NO affect whatsoever on my opinions regarding this case, so it doesn't matter to me WHAT it has to say. Actually, I've never bothered to even read it, except when a poster has quoted from it from time to time. So, I hardly think you can say that I've said everything in them must be wrong.

[rashomon]

Thanks for posting what Dr. Meyers said. Note he said nothing about "terry-cloth"? I didn't "think" I had ever read anything about terry-cloth fibers. I take it no match to those blue fibers have yet been found.

The Bonita Papers have NO affect whatsoever on my opinions regarding this case, so it doesn't matter to me WHAT it has to say. Actually, I've never bothered to even read it, except when a poster has quoted from it from time to time. So, I hardly think you can say that I've said everything in them must be wrong.
I wrote "everything in them which doesn't suit one's theory", which is something else. :)

jmo

[Evening2]

I wrote "everything in them which doesn't suit one's theory", which is something else. :)

jmo

Well, since I don't HAVE a theory nor have I ever posted one, then that certainly doesn't apply to me. :)

In the case of the blue fibers being "terry-cloth" like, as according to the Bonita Papers, apparently that IS wrong based on what you posted from Dr. Meyers. He said nothing about the blue fibers being "terry-cloth" like.