I am so sorry you’ve gone elvis

[aussiesheila]

I read with sinking heart that last post of yours that lead up to your saying goodbye. I’m sure I am not the only poster who simply loved having you here, not just for your medical knowledge but because you were fun too.

Way back when I was posting at Websleuths I just so wished we had an in house medico who we could refer medical questions to (there is a limit to what you can find out on internet searches). There was a poster there who used to state over and over, and I’m paraphrasing here “the brain was so swollen it had flattened out from pressing on the inside surface of the skull”. Before long everyone was chanting “swollen brain, swollen brain”. I was sure they were wrong but other than referring to the coroner having stated “No inflammation is identified” there was not much else I could do.

So when this medico with the broken ankle appeared in our midst at CourtTV I jumped for joy. I am forever grateful to you for explaining how the “Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri” occurred as well as posting your medical opinion on other points, which I had previously posted about but with no authority.

When I first started posting I felt it was incumbent on me to rebut EVERY incorrect statement put forward as proof of Ramsey guilt with reasoned, considered replies. I soon realized that people didn’t even read them or if they did they simply ignored them or worse still criticized me for making them and then went on repeating the same old pseudo facts. When you came here I could see that a similar thing was happening to you, I would groan inwardly when you launched into yet another reason why there was no great span of time between the strangling and head bashing, as time and time again someone would come up with some absurd reason why it just might possibly have been so. You showed a lot more patience in answering these people than I thought was warranted, but then that is probably just me getting selfish in my old age. I eventually gave up on replying to certain posters when I saw I was getting nowhere, and I realized that some people were going to cling to their beliefs even in the face of logic saying they cannot possibly be true. I think that is a good line to follow. Remember there are still people around who believe the earth is flat.

So you have been attacked personally now too, but with a degree of visciousness that I find appalling as I’m sure most posters here think so too and would like to see that poster banned. I know an attack like this is very hurtful, but it is nevertheless, as I’m sure you well know in your less emotional moments, a sign that your arguments are strong when those who disagree with you have no other recourse but to attack you.

So I for one will miss your presence. And I never did get around to asking you the other question I had which, was why do you think an occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial infiltrate in the thyroid was seen by the coroner in the autopsy examination? I have always wondered if that could possibly have been the result of previous applications of a garotte to her neck on previous occasions of sexual abuse. I would have loved to hear from you whether this is commonly seen in a child’s thyroid and if so, what is the cause.

seeya
aussie

[Zoey]

I
So I for one will miss your presence. And I never did get around to asking you the other question I had which, was why do you think an occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial infiltrate in the thyroid was seen by the coroner in the autopsy examination? I have always wondered if that could possibly have been the result of previous applications of a garotte to her neck on previous occasions of sexual abuse. I would have loved to hear from you whether this is commonly seen in a child’s thyroid and if so, what is the cause.

seeya
aussie

Aussie:

I asked this question of Elvislives a long time ago in PM. I am sure she would not mind me sharing her answer.

What that most likely means is that JB suffered from chronic (in md terms chronic means more than 5) ear infections or sinus infections, or possibly allergies. The interstitial thyroid tissue tends to inflame whenever the lymph nodes are swollen--and the lymph nodes in this area will swell whenever the pt gets an upper respiratory infection.
Parathyroid is a tiny (the size of a grain of rice) gland --actually there are 4 of them--that sit behind the thyroid. The ME was just noting it. It is nothing significant. Hope that helps!
Elvis

[bullmoose]

Good-bye, elvislives, your intelligent posting here will be much missed by those of us that appreciated the medical insights you offered. You leave us a little wiser, if not closer to a solution on the resolution of this case. Happy Trails:seeya:

[Athena]

Aussie:

I asked this question of Elvislives a long time ago in PM. I am sure she would not mind me sharing her answer.

What that most likely means is that JB suffered from chronic (in md terms chronic means more than 5) ear infections or sinus infections, or possibly allergies. The interstitial thyroid tissue tends to inflame whenever the lymph nodes are swollen--and the lymph nodes in this area will swell whenever the pt gets an upper respiratory infection.
Parathyroid is a tiny (the size of a grain of rice) gland --actually there are 4 of them--that sit behind the thyroid. The ME was just noting it. It is nothing significant. Hope that helps!
Elvis

Well she did suffer from allergies and she also had asthma so elvis' answer seems to be spot on and sounds like she was not aware of JBRs medical history. It's posted somewhere on this board. JMO

[SnarkyCow]

I'm sad to see Elvis leave too! :( I really enjoyed her posts. Hope she'll find her way back here at some point. :)

[aussiesheila]

Aussie:

I asked this question of Elvislives a long time ago in PM. I am sure she would not mind me sharing her answer.

What that most likely means is that JB suffered from chronic (in md terms chronic means more than 5) ear infections or sinus infections, or possibly allergies. The interstitial thyroid tissue tends to inflame whenever the lymph nodes are swollen--and the lymph nodes in this area will swell whenever the pt gets an upper respiratory infection.
Parathyroid is a tiny (the size of a grain of rice) gland --actually there are 4 of them--that sit behind the thyroid. The ME was just noting it. It is nothing significant. Hope that helps!
ElvisIt's a big help Zoey, thanks a lot.

[shill]

Ironic that every one is seeking the truth, but only a few want to hear it.

[Sharon]

Good-bye, elvislives, your intelligent posting here will be much missed by those of us that appreciated the medical insights you offered. You leave us a little wiser, if not closer to a solution on the resolution of this case. Happy Trails:seeya:

Huge 2nd.

However, I dont blame her for leaving. Her time was a valuable gift that she was giving for free. Having her here was indeed a windfall for the board. jmo.

[rashomon]

Ironic that every one is seeking the truth, but only a few want to hear it.
But exactly what IS the truth?
Remember that Dr. Spitz said there were blood clots in JB's brain. Unlike Elvislives and us, he studied about 100 autopsy pictures.
I asked EL how Dr. Spitz can state this if the blood in JB's brain had no time to organize itself - her answer was "I don't know."
And that is the point: we may don't know many things. For we all have only read the written autopsy report and EL was able to translate parts of it to us. The whole autopsy file is probably much larger.
If we sum up what both EL and Dr. Spitz stated about the blood in JB's brain, there seem to be areas where the blood did have time to organize itself (clots) and areas where the blood did not have time to organize itself.

[Zoey]

But exactly what IS the truth?
Remember that Dr. Spitz said there were blood clots in JB's brain. Unlike Elvislives and us, he studied about 100 autopsy pictures.
I asked EL how Dr. Spitz can state this if the blood in JB's brain had no time to organize itself - her answer was "I don't know."
And that is the point: we may don't know many things. For we all have only read the written autopsy report and EL was able to translate parts of it to us. The whole autopsy file is probably much larger.
If we sum up what both EL and Dr. Spitz stated about the blood in JB's brain, there seem to be areas where the blood did have time to organize itself (clots) and areas where the blood did not have time to organize itself.

In Elvislives defense, I don't think she was responding I don't know to your question, per se, I think she may have answered I don't know as in, I don't know why Dr. Spitz would state what he did. Since Elvislives was not Dr. Spitz, she would not know why he answered questions the way he did. I can't find that particular post at the moment by Elvislives, but IIRC, she went on to explain her thoughts about this. I think you are taking the I don't know out of context. IMO.

[rashomon]

In Elvislives defense, I don't think she was responding I don't know to your question, per se, I think she may have answered I don't know as in, I don't know why Dr. Spitz would state what he did. Since Elvislives was not Dr. Spitz, she would not know why he answered questions the way he did. I can't find that particular post at the moment by Elvislives, but IIRC, she went on to explain her thoughts about this. I think you are taking the I don't know out of context. IMO.

My question to EL was:
- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

EL's answer: I don't know.

You can read the whole post here (# 445 on the thread)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280581&page=12

What Dr. Spitz states seems to contradict the inference EL drew from the forensic evidence (= that JB must have died very soon after the head blow).
For if there were in fact blod clots in JB brain, the blood in some areas of her brain must have had enough time to organize itself.
Dr. Spitz is a renowned expert who has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies.

[bullmoose]

Are you absolutely sure about that number of 50,000? An autopsy takes as long as 6 hours, even if Spitz was on an assembly line in a morgue, the number is hard to swallow. At the rate of four a day seven days a week he would have needed 35 years or so to perform such a staggering sum; how in the world could he have found time to review forensic testing in this high-speed McDonald's style morgue? Or eat, or sleep, or have a life outside just cutting and weighing organs and examining an endless line of corpses? Where would he find the time to write up the cases he was whipping out? Or examine information and give opinions on cases like Jonbenet? Come on, give it a thought and admit that the number is inflated; maybe that's the number of autopsies done in his country of origin during his career,but not even a slasher in a horror movie does that many. JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

Me thinks there are toooo many zeros there.

[Sprocket]

Dr. Werner Spitz:


http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=166&category=locations
Over the years the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office has pioneered and expanded investigative techniques and the scientific discipline.

In 1972, Dr Werner Spitz became Chief Medical Examiner and immediately instituted controversial reforms at the morgue. During his 16-year reign Spitz built an international reputation by testifying at high-profile trials and congressional investigations. He testified in investigations into the Mary Jo Kopechne drowning, the Oakland County child murders, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Skid Row Murder trial in Los Angeles. He wrote a textbook that is a standard in medical schools around the world.

Dr. Spitz decreed that bodies were to remain in the facility no longer than 24 hours. He installed closed circuit television to ease the impact of identification on family members. He hired additional staff and trained them to run the morgue more efficiently. For the first time Wayne State University affiliated itself with the morgue. Dr. Spitz set up a private organization to help investigate Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), commonly known as "crib death."

He began sending pituitary glands to outside firms for use in manufacturing Human Growth Hormone, a vital ingredient for children otherwise destined for dwarfism. He even took down the Morgue sign and replaced it with a more benign "Wayne County Medical Examiner" plaque.

Famed Los Angeles Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Noguchi said of Spritz: "He's probably one of the best there is."

Biography
http://www.norfolkfour.com/index.php?/norfolk/people_page/dr_werner_u_spitz_md/
Dr. Werner U. Spitz, M.D., one of this country’s most experienced and well-respected forensic pathologists, is a Professor of Pathology at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, Adjunct Professor of Pathology at the University of Windsor in Canada, and a forensic pathologist and toxicologist consultant. He has served as the Chief Medical Examiner for Macomb County, Michigan, the Chief Medical Examiner for Wayne County, Michigan, and the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner in Baltimore, Maryland.
Dr. Spitz has published more than ninety scientific articles in medical journals, as well as a textbook that is considered to be the leading authority on forensic pathology. He has testified numerous times in high-profile cases, including the wrongful death suit against O.J. Simpson, and has testified before the House of Representatives regarding the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Martin Luther King, Jr. During his 52 years as a forensic pathologist, he has either performed or supervised nearly 60,000 autopsies.

As I've said before Rashomon, the Boulder PD was asking for the opinion of other forensic experts. Even before Dr. Meyer had finished his autopsy report, Dr. Henry Lee was consulted (source ST: IRMI). Dr. Spitz got to review the complete autopsy file (source: above referenced article). Dr. McCann and a panel of six other experts in sexual abuse were consulted by the Boulder PD (source: Bonita Papers).

The Boulder PD didn't rely soley on Meyer's autopsy report, they consulted others for their expert opinion. To rely soley on the autopsy report for clues into the exact manner of JB's death (when the investigators closest to the case clearly didn't) is to ignore vital information. Ignoring vital information will not help you form a solid, and substantiated opinion as to the series of events regarding JB's death in this case.

[andU]

Point taken... my bad.

[Zoey]

My question to EL was:
- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

EL's answer: I don't know.

You can read the whole post here (# 445 on the thread)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280581&page=12

What Dr. Spitz states seems to contradict the inference EL drew from the forensic evidence (= that JB must have died very soon after the head blow).
For if there were in fact blod clots in JB brain, the blood in some areas of her brain must have had enough time to organize itself.
Dr. Spitz is a renowned expert who has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies.

Rashomon,
Thank you for all the information, but I still think you are taking what Elvislives out of context. She is not saying she doesn't know why JB had blood clots or didn't. She is saying she doesn't know why Dr. Spitz says that as she has never spoken to him.

I am not trying to argue with you, so please don't take it that way. I am just saying that you are reading incorrectly what Elvislives meant. IMO

[bullmoose]

The word left out by Rashoman in her description of Dr. Spitz' credentials was 'supervised'. That changes the perspective altogether, as chief medical examiner in Wayne County, IE Detroit, Michigan or Macomb County, which includes Mt. Clemens, Michigan certainly it is no stretch to say that 50 or even 60 thousand autopsies were performed during his 52 years as a forensic pathologist while he held that position and others.He was the boss so he supervised them; he didn't perform all of them, probably not most of them.The information about his work with pituitary glands and HGH is interesting, as my cousin in Detroit was treated with HGH in the 70's and went from 4'6'' at 16 to 5'9'' at 19.JMHO

[andU]

Well, sure, ok... I can that as possible .... he was 'in charge' of that many as Dept. Head; he didn't even know when some of the were scheduled, probably.

[bullmoose]

Well, sure, ok... I can that as possible .... he was 'in charge' of that many as Dept. Head; he didn't even know when some of the were scheduled, probably.IMHO, probably not even 90 per cent or more; he conducted 50 or 60 thousand autopsies the way Ramses the Great built monuments: he directed the operation from afar, alighting on the scene, when necessary. This is not in any way taking away from what are awesome credentials, it's just trying to understand his credentials better. JMHO

[andU]

IMHO, probably not even 90 per cent or more; he conducted 50 or 60 thousand autopsies the way Ramses the Great built monuments: he directed the operation from afar, alighting on the scene, when necessary. This is not in any way taking away from what are awesome credentials, it's just trying to understand his credentials better. JMHO


Well spoken!

[aussiesheila]

My question to EL was:
- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

EL's answer: I don't know.

You can read the whole post here (# 445 on the thread)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280581&page=12

What Dr. Spitz states seems to contradict the inference EL drew from the forensic evidence (= that JB must have died very soon after the head blow).
For if there were in fact blod clots in JB brain, the blood in some areas of her brain must have had enough time to organize itself.
Dr. Spitz is a renowned expert who has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies.Look rashomon, even if Spitz did look at 100 autopsy photos of JonBenet and identified some dark red areas as clotted blood as opposed to non-clotted blood, he nevertheless thought that both the head blow and the strangulation came very close together.

To believe in the likelihood that an accidental head bash by Patsy came first and the garotting came later as a form of staging (which I think is your theory), any logically minded sleuth would have to postulate that the Ramseys took at least 15 minutes after the head bash to get together the wherewithal for the garotte and then set it all up.

I am absolutely certain that if Spitz was asked about this he would have said no this could not be what happened, because if they took that long to apply the garotte the head wound would have bled much, much more than it did and the brain would have been swollen and it wasn't.


As an aside, I am wondering just how you can justify believing what was said on a television interview by a pathologist who had looked only at photographs before claiming there was evidence of clotting, when the pathologist who searched for the same evidence while examining the body itself for the offical autopsy but saw none, would be the one to have a better appreciation of whether there were clots or not is beyond me.

[shill]

But exactly what IS the truth?


I don't think you have to be a medical expert to figure out that if your skull was bashed in causing an 8 inch crack and a hole that there is going to be some major bleeding.
I've had enough head injuries and others to see how much blood you can spill in a short amount of time with an injury far less sever then JB's cracked skull.
The lack of bleeding and swelling should be obvious to the laymen that something restricted an expected amount of blood flow.
This post is an opinion, which apperantly can't be wrong.

[rashomon]

Look rashomon, even if Spitz did look at 100 autopsy photos of JonBenet and identified some dark red areas as clotted blood as opposed to non-clotted blood, he nevertheless thought that both the head blow and the strangulation came very close together..
If memory serves, Dr. Spitz did not give a time frame. He only stated that JB was still alive when strangled.

To believe in the likelihood that an accidental head bash by Patsy came first and the garotting came later as a form of staging (which I think is your theory), any logically minded sleuth would have to postulate that the Ramseys took at least 15 minutes after the head bash to get together the wherewithal for the garotte and then set it all up.
Correct. One can't switch gears from rage attack to staging immediately afterward.

But don't forget that it works both ways: how logical is it for a sexual predator to whack JB on the head and then immediately garrote her?
I am absolutely certain that if Spitz was asked about this he would have said no this could not be what happened, because if they took that long to apply the garotte the head wound would have bled much, much more than it did and the brain would have been swollen and it wasn't.
Dr. Spitz's theory is very interesting (it is mentioned ST's book). According to Spitz, JB was probably strangled first (to strangle someone doesn't have to meant this was a planned murder - quite a few domestic violence victims got strangled by an enraged family member), but that this didn't kill her, only sent her into a deep coma.
During the initial strangulation, blood vessels were constricted, which is the reason why JB didn't bleed as much when the later head bash followed. The garrote was applied last for staging purposes.
As an aside, I am wondering just how you can justify believing what was said on a television interview by a pathologist who had looked only at photographs before claiming there was evidence of clotting, when the pathologist who searched for the same evidence while examining the body itself for the offical autopsy but saw none, would be the one to have a better appreciation of whether there were clots or not is beyond me
Dr. Spitz is a famous pathologist who has conducted/supervised/been involved in more that 50,000 autopsies, therefore we can assume he recognizes blood clots in an autopsy picture when he sees them.
But if there were in fact blood clots in JB's brain, then some of the blood in JB's body must have had time to organize itself.

As opposed to that, how do we know how 'thorough' Dr. Meyer was?
For example, instead of using a sterile nail clipper fo each finger, he used one single nail clipper for all ten, thus possibly contaminating forensic evidence.

What is more, sometimes the same fingernail clippers were used in different autopsy projects. (Source: ACandyRose site)

There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB. But these things from the autopsy report are listed in the so-called 'Bonita papers', the notes of Bonita Sauer. She was the secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the lawyers the BPD had hired as consultants on the case, and had access to a lot in inside info.

Here is the interview of Dr. Spitz:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03172000spitzondiscovery.htm


Part 1


Discovery News


transcript by listener on 3/18/2000
Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz
From handwriting analysis to the autopsy, the lastest twist in what the evidence may reveal about this gruesome crime.
Six year old JonBenet Ramsey is back in the news this week. The girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, are out with a new book that proclaimed their innocence, and offers a psychological profile about who they think killed their daughter. The case has stumped authorities for 3 yrs. One of the most basic questions that has gone unanswered,--- what weapons were used in the murder?
THE WEAPON:
LC: From the day the body was found, investigators knew that Jon Benet Ramsey, suffered a severe blow to the head, as well as strangulatiion with a cord. But which came first? Determining that could tell a great deal about the motive and the killer. Investigators speculate strangulation first could mean a sex crime. If the blow came first, it might point to a kidnapper or a crime of rage. Dr.Werner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public. You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.
Dr. WS: Yes.
LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.
Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.
LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?
Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,
LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.
Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.
LC:Let me say that the noose, made of cord similar to this, was not tied around her neck after death. He believes that she was dying of the head injury while she was strangled. His evidence,...a tell tale pattern of hemmoraging on the internal surface of her eye lids. Petechial or penpoint hemmorages.
Dr.WS: When strangulation occurs, there is a point where the blood vessels to the neck get obstructed. The blood still flows into the head, but it doesn't flow out. LC: That's because veins, which have lower blood pressure, are shut off first. Arteries, with higher blood pressure, keep flowing longer.
Dr.WS: ........?..there is increased pressure above the knees, and tiny little blood vessels in the eyes and around the eyes, may break.
LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.
Dr.WS: I believe that this..?.pressure occurred at the time that she died, or just before, or during.
LC: But Spitz thinks the sexual assault was an attempt to disguise the crime scene, to make it look like a sex crime.

Remember EL said that in order to get petechiae, a person must be breathing vigorously.
Dr. Spitz explains the petechiae found on JB by blood vessels having been obstructed during the strangulation. So this process would also occur in a person who is in a deep coma and not necessarily breathing 'vigorously'. Spitz also does not say the heart must have been beating vigorously while she was strangled, merely that it was still beating.

[rashomon]

I don't think you have to be a medical expert to figure out that if your skull was bashed in causing an 8 inch crack and a hole that there is going to be some major bleeding.
I've had enough head injuries and others to see how much blood you can spill in a short amount of time with an injury far less sever then JB's cracked skull.
The lack of bleeding and swelling should be obvious to the laymen that something restricted an expected amount of blood flow.
This post is an opinion, which apperantly can't be wrong.

I mentioned Dr. Spitz's theory on that in my prior post.
According to Spitz, JB was probably strangled first (to strangle someone doesn't have to mean this was a planned murder - quite a few domestic violence victims got strangled by an enraged family member), but that this didn't kill her, only sent her into a deep coma.
During the initial strangulation, blood vessels were constricted, which is the reason why JB didn't bleed as much when the later head bash followed. The garrote was applied last for staging purposes.

[shill]

The garrote was applied last for staging purposes.

Strangled, clobbered, strangled for appearance to cover up the first strangulation? Alleged cover up, lies, deception?

IMO she was being strangled with the garrote when she was clobbered and the garrote was left on her. It fits the evidence without a conspiracy theory. A simple explanation.

There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB.
And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?

[bullmoose]

Strangled, clobbered, strangled for appearance to cover up the first strangulation? Alleged cover up, lies, deception?

IMO she was being strangled with the garrote when she was clobbered and the garrote was left on her. It fits the evidence without a conspiracy theory. A simple explanation.


And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?be fair, Shill, I think maybe in German Murder cases, that Das Koronorer has the job of looking for loose
fibers, as I've learned from her posts, things are done very different in Germany. Just my silly opinion,Ja!:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Alleged cover up, lies, deception?
Yes. The CASKU experts have pointed out that the crime scene was staged.

IMO she was being strangled with the garrote when she was clobbered and the garrote was left on her. It fits the evidence without a conspiracy theory. A simple explanation.
You think while she was bashed on the head, the perp fumbled the garrote contraption together and put it on her neck?
And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?
be fair, Shill, I think maybe in German Murder cases, that Das Koronorer has the job of looking for loose
fibers, as I've learned from her posts, things are done very different in Germany. Just my silly opinion,Ja!
Shill/Bullmoose
Things are done pretty much the same way during autopsies here in Germany.
The issue is not about gathering fiber evidence in general, but to note fibers or other items which are found on the body. These things are collected and put into evidence.
The fibers found in JB's genitals are listed in the so-called Bonita papers. B. Sauer was the secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the top-flight lawyers the BPD had hired as consultants on the case. As his secretary, Sauer had a lot of access to inside info.

a white fiber was found on her chin; dark colored hairs were found on the shoulder area of the shirt; dark blue fibers were located on the back of the right shoulder of the shirt; hairs and other trace evidence were located on her shirt underneath both her left and right arms and on the lower part of her shirt; fibers and an eyelash were located on the front of her shirt. [B]All these minuscule items were recovered and placed into evidence. During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia.
....
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.

Although Dr. Meyer stated that the child appeared to have been wiped, again this does not show up in his nine page autopsy report.
The whole autopsy file is probably much larger that the short nine page report.

[bullmoose]

Good post, Rashoman, good info that I'd forgotten.:seeya:

[Athena]

Well I believe that JBR's death was a slow, torturous one; she was being strangled slowly to make her suffer, she screamed, the perp based her in the head, and then finished strangling her. A crime of anger and she was just a symbol of the perp's anger towards JR. JMO

[Tober]

A crime of anger and she was just a symbol of the perp's anger towards JR. JMO There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

[Athena]

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

Ya know what Tober. Those are my thoughts based on what I have read, researched and how I interpreted the ransom note and there is NO proof that it didn't happen for that reason. It was also made up prior to me reading anything about John Douglas. It is my opinion and if you don't like my opinion so be it but it's mine and I'm entitled to to it. ... My theory or thoughts are no less factual than what you purport the facts to be unless of course you killed JBR. MOO

[Zoey]

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)


I have spent the past 10 year of my life searching for information on this case Tober, and for you to imply that because I feel this crime was committed against JB because someone hated her father so much that I could not possible want justice for JB just down right pisses me off. I want nothing more than justice for that beautiful little girl.

[nuisanceposter]

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

Tober's made some excellent points.

There is no proof that this crime was committed to target JR and not JonBenet. The ransom note says so? The ransom note also says this crime is a kidnapping and there are two gentlemen watching over JonBenet, and that wasn't true at all.

People believe that if the Ramseys were the victims, then they couldn't be the perpetrators.

JonBenet was the true and actual victim. She is the one who was bludgeoned and molested and strangled to death. Any trauma to J&P, real or merely perceived, is secondary to what happened to JonBenet.

There is a loyal and determined collection of people who will never allow the fact that JonBenet was the true victim to neglected or forgotten.

This perp, for how much risk he took and as successful as he was, has never followed up on the grudge against JR that caused him to act in the first place.

[Athena]

Follow up what? What more could the perp have rubbed in? He/she killed their precious baby girl, ruined their lives; and the perp obviously wasn't going to admit it. And just to make it clear of course JBR was the victim and deserves justice which is what we're here but what is more important to a parent than their child?

Sure I could be totally wrong but again it is my opinion until proven otherwise.

[zippo]

Tober's made some excellent points.

There is no proof that this crime was committed to target JR and not JonBenet. The ransom note says so? The ransom note also says this crime is a kidnapping and there are two gentlemen watching over JonBenet, and that wasn't true at all.

People believe that if the Ramseys were the victims, then they couldn't be the perpetrators.

JonBenet was the true and actual victim. She is the one who was bludgeoned and molested and strangled to death. Any trauma to J&P, real or merely perceived, is secondary to what happened to JonBenet.

There is a loyal and determined collection of people who will never allow the fact that JonBenet was the true victim to neglected or forgotten.

This perp, for how much risk he took and as successful as he was, has never followed up on the grudge against JR that caused him to act in the first place.

One thing we will agree on, Nuisanceposter. Tober does make excellent posts.

[bullmoose]

One thing we will agree on, Nuisanceposter. Tober does make excellent posts.Thats whats so fun about this board; the total divergence of opinions, which I think is the strength of this board. I, conversely, think that Tober's posts pale beside some of the other RDI's in reasoning; no, I'm not going to name the ones I refer to, as they would probably just be embarassed. JMHO:biggrin:

[Tober]

If John Ramsey was the target of the crime, then why (as stated in the Atlanta 2000 interviews) were his shirt fibers found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area? Consider the following: 1) John alleges he carried JonBenet to bed, but Patsy allegedly undressed her for bed, so that wouldn't account for John's shirt fibers being found there; and 2) JonBenet's private area had been wiped down before she was redressed after the crime; and 3) JonBenet was found wearing brand new, previously unwashed Bloomies from a brand new, previously unopened package. As one can see, when attempting to excuse the fibers on the basis of secondary transfer, we run into some major issues. (IMO)

[Tober]

I might add that John was given opportunity to offer an innocent explanation for his shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. He didn't, nor did he at any time after. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

If John Ramsey was the target of the crime, then why (as stated in the Atlanta 2000 interviews) were his shirt fibers found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area? Consider the following: 1) John alleges he carried JonBenet to bed, but Patsy allegedly undressed her for bed, so that wouldn't account for John's shirt fibers being found there; and 2) JonBenet's private area had been wiped down before she was redressed after the crime; and 3) JonBenet was found wearing brand new, previously unwashed Bloomies from a brand new, previously unopened package. As one can see, when attempting to excuse the fibers on the basis of secondary transfer, we run into some major issues. (IMO)As Tober Twists things to try to make a talking point out of imaginary fibers, he exposes a certain lack of common sense; one can never excuse fibers that only exist in the minds of a few posters, one cannot explain what does not exist and never did. As Tober knows no explanation of any fibers from John's shirt in Jonbenets panties or crotch area was ever offered, Lin Wood asked for proof that the fibers existed before he would let John answer, because he knew it to be just a trick question, with no basis in fact. The question was just dropped, it wasn't about something real. There are a couple posters here, like Tober that want the fibers to be; IMO they have yet to make them become real.:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

I might add that John was given opportunity to offer an innocent explanation for his shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. He didn't, nor did he at any time after. (IMO)Its sort of like asking a married man if he has stopped beating his wife and children; there is no right answer to the question, it is a Twisted trick question; by not responding to it the intended victim simply refuses to be roped into a crooked game. John has refused to play the BPD's crooked game.JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

I might add that John was given opportunity to offer an innocent explanation for his shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. He didn't, nor did he at any time after. (IMO)

Your such a Tool!
You've asked this and it's been answered like all your post.
You should change your hat to brokenrecord.

Since John's fibers aren't on her, there is nothing to explain.
It was a poker bluff and he called her bluff, end of that line of questioning, they folded.

[shill]

Fleet White's fingerprints and fibers are on crime scene evidence which places him at the scene of the crime. So one can infer he is the killer.
This post is my Tober like opinion.

[Eagle1]

I have to go back and read that again, but even if they were real, there's been disagreement about whether they were black, dark blue, or just "dark", so they're not proven to be from John's shirt, bathrobe, or whatever. JAR also had a college blanket with dark blue in it, probably the background.

[nuisanceposter]

Your such a Tool!
You've asked this and it's been answered like all your post.
You should change your hat to brokenrecord.

Since John's fibers aren't on her, there is nothing to explain.
It was a poker bluff and he called her bluff, end of that line of questioning, they folded.

Go ahead and prove it then, Shill. Prove your statement of fact with sources that back your claim up.

[nuisanceposter]

Fleet White's fingerprints and fibers are on crime scene evidence which places him at the scene of the crime. So one can infer he is the killer.
This post is my Tober like opinion.

That depends upon how relevant the glass and suitcase are to the crime scene. The suitcase and glass may very well have been there before the crime even occurred. No one has been able to prove they weren't.

FW's prints on the glass place him in the scene of the broken window, but not in the crime scene, since we don't know if the broken glass is part of the crime or not. Even if his prints are there and that's part of the crime scene, that does not place him there during the crime. You'd have to prove he was there in the house when the murder occurred, or else it's evidence that got there after the murder was committed, and definitely not part of the actual crime.

What fibers of FW's were in the crime scene, Shill? Link, please.

[rashomon]

I have to go back and read that again, but even if they were real, there's been disagreement about whether they were black, dark blue, or just "dark", so they're not proven to be from John's shirt, bathrobe, or whatever. JAR also had a college blanket with dark blue in it, probably the background.
QUOTE
From the Bonita papers:
During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia.
....
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.

MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.

John Ramsey's shirt was made of black wool, and fibers from this shirt were found on JB's external labia and in the crotch area of her underpants.
In addition, her pubic area appered to have been wiped by a navy-blue cloth consistent with a cotton towel.

[Athena]

JBR had on black pants Christmas Day. They were throwing everything out that they could hoping something would stick. JMO

[bullmoose]

QUOTE
From the Bonita papers:
During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia.
....
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.



John Ramsey's shirt was made of black wool, and fibers from this shirt were found on JB's external labia and in the crotch area of her underpants.
In addition, her pubic area appered to have been wiped by a navy-blue cloth consistent with a cotton towel.This simply not true; it is Rashoman 's flying carpet of imaginary fibers come back to life yet again.

[bullmoose]

REALLY! Tober, you just gave me some brand new information! I didn't know about any of the facts you stated in this paragraph! Thanks for the info! Hmm, I didn't think John was involved, I've always thought Patsy did it and John helped her cover up..Beware of false information, BO, you aren't getting facts from Tober about the fibers from John Ramseys shirt, you are being taken on a magic carpet ride that some posters try to fly now and then. It doesn't pass because of the fact that its not true.:tongue:

[nuisanceposter]

Beware of false information, BO, you aren't getting facts from Tober about the fibers from John Ramseys shirt, you are being taken on a magic carpet ride that some posters try to fly now and then. It doesn't pass because of the fact that its not true.:tongue:

Don't stop there, Bullmoose...go ahead and link us in to the source you have that backs up your claim. Show us the proof that the fiber evidence does not exist and was all a lie.

[bullmoose]

Don't stop there, Bullmoose...go ahead and link us in to the source you have that backs up your claim. Show us the proof that the fiber evidence does not exist and was all a lie.Come on, NP, you and I both know it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't believe in the existance of leprechans, no I can't link you to the source that backs up my claim on them either. My belief that it is all a lie is based on my belief in logic. If indeed such fiber evidence existed outside of fantasy, what logical reason would there have been not to get an indictment, have a trial and conviction? IMO, it would have been a slam-dunk. Since nothing of the sort ever happened my logical deduction was and is that the fiber evidence from John's shirt on Jonbenet's genitalia was a perverted piece of fantasy by whoever thought up the question, just a trick question, nothing more. This is my logical opinion.

[shill]

That depends upon how relevant the glass and suitcase are to the crime scene. The suitcase and glass may very well have been there before the crime even occurred. No one has been able to prove they weren't.

FW's prints on the glass place him in the scene of the broken window, but not in the crime scene, since we don't know if the broken glass is part of the crime or not. Even if his prints are there and that's part of the crime scene, that does not place him there during the crime. You'd have to prove he was there in the house when the murder occurred, or else it's evidence that got there after the murder was committed, and definitely not part of the actual crime.

What fibers of FW's were in the crime scene, Shill? Link, please.

We'll never prove he was there that night until he admits it because he covered his tracks by contaminating the crime scene he left behind.

[nuisanceposter]

Come on, NP, you and I both know it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't believe in the existance of leprechans, no I can't link you to the source that backs up my claim on them either. My belief that it is all a lie is based on my belief in logic. If indeed such fiber evidence existed outside of fantasy, what logical reason would there have been not to get an indictment, have a trial and conviction? IMO, it would have been a slam-dunk. Since nothing of the sort ever happened my logical deduction was and is that the fiber evidence from John's shirt on Jonbenet's genitalia was a perverted piece of fantasy by whoever thought up the question, just a trick question, nothing more. This is my logical opinion.

Okay, so no proof at all, and the fiber evidence being fantasy is your own opinion. We don't have the reports from CBI irt the fiber analysis because it hasn't been made public, but we do know that more than one source has referenced the fiber analysis CBI did, and we know that Levin himself was at the CBI labs in person. We also know Levin has a reputation of being an honest man.

There's not going to be any indictment, trial, or conviction when the very people who would seek such (Boulder DA's office) have political and personal connections with the Ramsey attorneys and have been shielding the Rs from day one. There's a lot of corruption you just don't account for.

[bullmoose]

Okay, so no proof at all, and the fiber evidence being fantasy is your own opinion. We don't have the reports from CBI irt the fiber analysis because it hasn't been made public, but we do know that more than one source has referenced the fiber analysis CBI did, and we know that Levin himself was at the CBI labs in person. We also know Levin has a reputation of being an honest man.

There's not going to be any indictment, trial, or conviction when the very people who would seek such (Boulder DA's office) have political and personal connections with the Ramsey attorneys and have been shielding the Rs from day one. There's a lot of corruption you just don't account for.
Yes, and as ColoradoKares pointed out when she was still on this board, just as soon as the new governer was sworn in, he was going to appoint a special prosecuter to cut through the culture of corruption and get to the bottom of it on the case. Hmmpf, still waiting on that special prosecuter; hey, I'd like to see this case gone through top to bottom by outside people, like that show, ColdCase Files does, maybe there would be a resolution. As for Levin being honest, even an honest lawyer can ask a trick question of a suspect, to see if he or she trips up. I say, if the fibers had matched, he would have shown Lin Wood the proof he asked for and continued along that line of inquiry, that would have been damning evidence; since he did not,there was no match, just a trick question. JMHO

[nuisanceposter]

Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share evidence with the defense attorney of the prime suspects. Just because he didn't turn over whatever evidence he had seen when challenged about it is not indicative of him lying about it in the first place. It's not like he was sitting there with the reports from the CBI labs and refused to share a copy with Wood. That's merely the speculation wrought by those who cannot accept the existance of fiber evidence placing the Ramseys in the crime scene and on the body.

And you still don't account for the corruption going on in Boulder in regards to the DA's conduct favoring the Rs in the JBR investigation.

[shill]

Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share evidence with the defense attorney of the prime suspects.
But he did share evidence when he told them about the fiber evidence.
There was nothing to hide after he blabbed about it, except that it was a lie!

And you still don't account for the corruption going on in Boulder in regards to the DA's conduct favoring the Rs in the JBR investigation.
The real killer strangled JB from the grassy knoll and is now hiding out in Area 51.
Conspiracies, lies, staging all make for good tabloid trash stories and yours is just another tabloid trash story.

[rashomon]

Come on, NP, you and I both know it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't believe in the existance of leprechans, no I can't link you to the source that backs up my claim on them either. My belief that it is all a lie is based on my belief in logic. If indeed such fiber evidence existed outside of fantasy, what logical reason would there have been not to get an indictment, have a trial and conviction? IMO, it would have been a slam-dunk. Since nothing of the sort ever happened my logical deduction was and is that the fiber evidence from John's shirt on Jonbenet's genitalia was a perverted piece of fantasy by whoever thought up the question, just a trick question, nothing more. This is my logical opinion.
Where does this concept of the "impossibility to prove a negative" originate from? Photography?

Your whole argumentiation about not 'believing' in anything has nothing to do with PROOF, for 'belief' and 'proof' can't be compared.

Aside from that, of course it is possible "to prove a negative" in true crime cases:
For example: suppose in a mythical trial, the prosecution states that the victim ate shortly before his/her death, but the defense is able to prove per gastroenteral analysis that the victim had not eaten anything in the hours preceding death.
In that case, the defense was able to prove a 'negative', i. e. to prove that something did not exist.

[bullmoose]

Where does this concept of the "impossibility to prove a negative" originate from? Photography?

Your whole argumentiation about not 'believing' in anything has nothing to do with PROOF, for 'belief' and 'proof' can't be compared.

Aside from that, of course it is possible "to prove a negative" in true crime cases:
For example: suppose in a mythical trial, the prosecution states that the victim ate shortly before his/her death, but the defense is able to prove per gastroenteral analysis that the victim had not eaten anything in the hours preceding death.
In that case, the defense was able to prove a 'negative', i. e. to prove that something did not exist.Rashoman: picture this:But what if the prosecution claim was that the victim had not eaten; but he/she had but had thrown it all up and flushed the toilet prior to death, leaving no trace; then the autopsy would show nothing in the stomach; despite the claim of he/she having eaten. No, I repeat, and clarify perhaps, you cannot[always] prove a negative. I can never prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, if one was ever captured it would then prove that it does; I would like to believe that Bigfoot exists, and I live where it has been reported being seen, but I do not believe it exists, except as a prank by bored loggers or as a fraud. You know, like the match of the fibers, a fraud or trick.JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share evidence with the defense attorney of the prime suspects. Just because he didn't turn over whatever evidence he had seen when challenged about it is not indicative of him lying about it in the first place. It's not like he was sitting there with the reports from the CBI labs and refused to share a copy with Wood. That's merely the speculation wrought by those who cannot accept the existance of fiber evidence placing the Ramseys in the crime scene and on the body.

And you still don't account for the corruption going on in Boulder in regards to the DA's conduct favoring the Rs in the JBR investigation.
I do not accuse Levin of lying when he asked the trick question; he qualified it so that it was not a lie[What if]. Maybe he was under no obligation to share his evidence with Lin Wood concerning the question. But that was the only way he was going to get an answer to the question; since he didn't show Lin Wood proof that the fibers were anything but imaginary, he got no answer at all. If he was trying to find out about real fibers, IMO, because it would have been explosive information, he would have shown Lin Wood the report from the lab making the match, so that he could have pursued that line of questioning. But he didn't, IMO, because he couldn't because the report with the match didn't then and doesn't now exist. A trick question about imaginary fibers, thats all it was, Lin Wood didn't fall for it and Levin moved on to a different question. And I cannot account for the so-called corruption in the DA's office; just because it did not act in the way you approve does not make it corrupt; like I said yesterday, as ColoradoKares said: let the New Governer appoint a special prosecuter as she was so very sure was going to happen to cut through what you call corruption. The DA is an elected official, if Hunter and now Lacy are corrupt, then why did they get elected by the people down there? You would think that the tabloids would have exposed their wicked ways;I look at the headlines at the store and haven't seen any expose's on the DA's corruption. I don't even recall Synthroid Stevie in his book calling Hunter corrupt; of course that might have meant another lawsuit that his publisher,[ not him, not one penny] would have had to have paid. But then as you know, this is JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

But he did share evidence when he told them about the fiber evidence.
There was nothing to hide after he blabbed about it, except that it was a lie!


The real killer strangled JB from the grassy knoll and is now hiding out in Area 51.
Conspiracies, lies, staging all make for good tabloid trash stories and yours is just another tabloid trash story.Shill, be careful, don't spill the beans about the space alien, who, with the clever help of Bigfoot, was not only the second shooter on the grassy knoll, but was the killer of Jonbenet, then starred in that video with Paris Hilton[Bigfoot was running the camera] before going back to hide out safely in Area 51. I know its true, I saw a picture on the front of the Globe or maybe the NE with him shaking President Bush's hand. Surely they couldn't print it if it wasn't true,right?JMHO:biggrin:

[rashomon]

I do not accuse Levin of lying when he asked the trick question; he qualified it so that it was not a lie[What if]. Maybe he was under no obligation to share his evidence with Lin Wood concerning the question. But that was the only way he was going to get an answer to the question; since he didn't show Lin Wood proof that the fibers were anything but imaginary, he got no answer at all. If he was trying to find out about real fibers, IMO, because it would have been explosive information, he would have shown Lin Wood the report from the lab making the match, so that he could have pursued that line of questioning. But he didn't, IMO, because he couldn't because the report with the match didn't then and doesn't now exist. A trick question about imaginary fibers, thats all it was, Lin Wood didn't fall for it and Levin moved on to a different question.
Lin Wood became extremly agitated when John was asked about this, for he knew how damaging the fiber evidence would be to his client. On reading the interview, one can feel Wood's nervousness, as he is trying to muddy the waters by going into a tirade about questioning the scientific reliability of fiber matches. I think Wood took the potential fiber evidence against John far more seriously than the IDIs on message boards who simply allege that this evidence didn't exist. Which is why he tried everything to prevent John from answering it, hence his tirade.
Imo Wood did not think that this was a mere trick question by Levin.

[bullmoose]

Lin Wood became extremly agitated when John was asked about this, for he knew how damaging the fiber evidence would be to his client. On reading the interview, one can feel Wood's nervousness, as he is trying to muddy the waters by going into a tirade about questioning the scientific reliability of fiber matches. I think Wood took the potential fiber evidence against John far more seriously than the IDIs on message boards who simply allege that this evidence didn't exist. Which is why he tried everything to prevent John from answering it, hence his tirade.
Imo Wood did not think that this was a mere trick question by Levin.
It must be that language thing again, Rashoman, I too have read the interview transcript, which, after all, is in my native tongue, American English, and yet I get no feeling of Lin Wood being nervous, what I am reading indicates indignation at a trick question bordering on outrage that Levin would try such a cheap, unsubstantiated trick. I got the impression that Levin took the cheap shot, and then when queried as to the honest intent of the question, he moved on, not returning to it as he would be expected to if there were a basis for the question.JMHO

[Athena]

Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share evidence with the defense attorney of the prime suspects. Just because he didn't turn over whatever evidence he had seen when challenged about it is not indicative of him lying about it in the first place. It's not like he was sitting there with the reports from the CBI labs and refused to share a copy with Wood. That's merely the speculation wrought by those who cannot accept the existance of fiber evidence placing the Ramseys in the crime scene and on the body.

And you still don't account for the corruption going on in Boulder in regards to the DA's conduct favoring the Rs in the JBR investigation.

And you are aware that the BPD refused to cooperate with Henry Lee and Barry Scheck because they felt there was not enough evidence to convict and felt that every bid of fiber evidence would have been easily explained away. Hunter did what he had to do in order to avoid a trial where he and several others were quite sure would have wound up with a not guilty verdict. JBR had oversized underwear on and she wore BLACK pants Christmas day. I know for a fact interrogators lie during questioning and hope that something sticks. JMO

[Athena]

VAN SUSTEREN: Which may speak a little highly for the Boulder community, where I suspect there aren't a lot of first-degree murder cases.
But let's go to Boston to law professor Alan Dershowitz.
Alan, when should a prosecutor bring a case?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AUTHOR, "THE GENESIS OF JUSTICE": A prosecutor should bring a case only when on the basis of admissible evidence the case would be proved to satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the constitutional standard. That's the standard we respect all through this country, and I think that

Mr. Hunter was absolutely right in not bringing this country, and I think that Mr. Hunter was absolutely right in not bringing this case. I've looked at the Thompson book. It's full of speculation, theory, innuendo. He says his hypothesis is this. You know, that wouldn't even be a close case.
It would be unethical for a prosecutor to bring the case that is presented in this book to the -- to a jury. It would be wrong. It would be unethical. I think that Alex Hunter is, although he's become criticized ,I think he's a constitutional hero. He's a man who has made a decision to take the barbs and the slings, and there are going to be many, because it's much easier to bring the case. It would take no courage to bring the prosecution, and then if the jury acquitted, blame it on the jury. But it takes a lot of courage for a district attorney to bite the bullet and take the hard decision, and say there was a murder, maybe it's even likely certain people did it, but likely isn't enough.
The case is not here beyond a reasonable doubt, and Alex Hunter is absolutely right in his decision.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, it's interesting, that's the primary postulate of our legal system, that if we are going make a mistake, it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted. It's actually comes from the Bible, the book of Genesis. People will remember the story of Abraham arguing with God about the sinners of Sodom, and God going to kill everybody in Sodom, and Abraham says to God, "It would be unjust of you to sweep away the innocent with the guilty." if I find, 50, 40, 30, 20, even 10 innocent people, will you spare the whole city? And God, instead of saying, if you find 10, I'll find the 10. He says, yes, I'll spare the whole city, suggesting that if you have a system where if innocent people are wrongly prosecuted, it's very, very bad, and the number 10 actually comes from the story in the Bible. People trace it to Blackstone, but it's a biblical story.
In the "Genesis of Justice" I explain how our legal system derives from biblical norms, and this is one the most important ones, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and erring on the side of not prosecuting people who may be guilty rather than prosecuting people who may be innocent.

Larry King Live
Will JonBenet Ramsey's Murder Ever Be Solved?
Aired May 4, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET

[shill]

Lin Wood became extremly agitated when John was asked about this, for he knew how damaging the fiber evidence would be to his client. On reading the interview, one can feel Wood's nervousness, as he is trying to muddy the waters by going into a tirade about questioning the scientific reliability of fiber matches. I think Wood took the potential fiber evidence against John far more seriously than the IDIs on message boards who simply allege that this evidence didn't exist. Which is why he tried everything to prevent John from answering it, hence his tirade.
Imo Wood did not think that this was a mere trick question by Levin.

I've done a number of video taped depositions and play backs in court.

During the deposition the plaintiffs attorney makes a lot of wild leading and speculative questions.
The defense attorneys respond defensively in the identical manner that Lin Wood did. Sometimes we have to go off the record so they can argue about whether the plaintiff is going to continue with that kind of line of questioning and accusations.

When it comes time to play back the testimony from the deposition, a transcript is presented and the objections are argued with the judge.
The judge makes a ruling of what can stay and what goes.
Now this is where my job gets tricky. I have to follow the transcript and when it comes to the objections the judge allowed, I have to mute the audio. The jury sits there for minutes at a time with a video of the witness talking but no audio.
A lot of things get asked in a deposition that never makes it to court because they are not admissible questions.

[Athena]

I've done a number of video taped depositions and play backs in court.

During the deposition the plaintiffs attorney makes a lot of wild leading and speculative questions.
The defense attorneys respond defensively in the identical manner that Lin Wood did. Sometimes we have to go off the record so they can argue about whether the plaintiff is going to continue with that kind of line of questioning and accusations.

When it comes time to play back the testimony from the deposition, a transcript is presented and the objections are argued with the judge.
The judge makes a ruling of what can stay and what goes.
Now this is where my job gets tricky. I have to follow the transcript and when it comes to the objections the judge allowed, I have to mute the audio. The jury sits there for minutes at a time with a video of the witness talking but no audio.
A lot of things get asked in a deposition that never makes it to court because they are not admissible questions.

I agree and they do lie during interrogations hoping something will stick and the suspect will say "yes" I did that in a heated moment of being caught off guard. In court if they were to do the same thing they are subject to sanctions and possibly disbarment. And not for anything especially if JR is innocent what worse accusation can you make than a man molesting his daughter? And Levin says he wanted an "innocent" explanation .... give me a break. The man was lying and it is permissible to lie to a suspect.

[rashomon]

And you are aware that the BPD refused to cooperate with Henry Lee and Barry Scheck because they felt there was not enough evidence to convict and felt that every bid of fiber evidence would have been easily explained away. Hunter did what he had to do in order to avoid a trial where he and several others were quite sure would have wound up with a not guilty verdict. JBR had oversized underwear on and she wore BLACK pants Christmas day. I know for a fact interrogators lie during questioning and hope that something sticks. JMO
Where does it say that they refused to cooperate with them? The BPD, Scheck and Lee even visited the crime scene together. This is where Lee said that e. g. someone of Barry Scheck's stature would not fit through the basement window. :)
When Henry Lee learned how much of the crime scene had been destroyed (e. g. Pam Paugh was allowed to rummage through it), his sarcastic comment was "Rice already cooked. Crime scene gone."
At the big meeting where the BPD presented their case, Barry Scheck told the detectives: "I'm more of a friend than you think".

[rashomon]

It must be that language thing again, Rashoman, I too have read the interview transcript, which, after all, is in my native tongue, American English, and yet I get no feeling of Lin Wood being nervous, what I am reading indicates indignation at a trick question bordering on outrage that Levin would try such a cheap, unsubstantiated trick. I got the impression that Levin took the cheap shot, and then when queried as to the honest intent of the question, he moved on, not returning to it as he would be expected to if there were a basis for the question.JMHO
Whether it was nervousness or not, Wood clearly did not want John Ramsey to answer the question, for fear he might say something self-incriminating. Which is why he tried to flood Levin with a tirade about the reliability of the evidence. If he had been of the opinion that this was a cheap unsubstantiated trick, you bet a hard-boiled lawyer like Wood would have told Levin this bluntly.
Do you seriously believe that people like Bruce Levin Esq., Michael Kane Esq., Mitch Morrissey Esq. were stupid liars playing a blunt trick on John Ramsey?

Note that Wood did not tell Levin that he thought the fibers did not exist.
Which is why he wanted to study the lab report himself.
Levin also told Wood that he was going to ask Patsy about these fibers too, so maybe she could explain how they got there.
Imo nothing in Lin Wood's reaction conveys that he thought Levin didn't have anything possibly incriminating.
Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Therefore no way could Levin have pulled out anything of thin air in this interview - far too risky.

When Levin moved on in the interview, this does not mean Wood 'defeated' him in any way. These interviews delve into many aspects of the case, their purpose is not to treat each matter exhaustively, but to get reactions from the suspect, to compare what he says with his prior statements, and to keep him talking as much as possible. For there is always the danger that the suspect will suddenly clam up and refuse to continue if he feels things get too critical.

[nuisanceposter]

I agree, Rashomon, and your post is excellent. If Wood had believed Levin was lying about the existence of fiber evidence, he would have had no qualms about stating so and getting it on the record. The only recourse the IDI has in the face of the fiber evidence is to claim it's a lie it even exists, even though that has never been proven and Wood thought it was real.

And you are aware that the BPD refused to cooperate with Henry Lee and Barry Scheck because they felt there was not enough evidence to convict and felt that every bid of fiber evidence would have been easily explained away.

Where did you get that information?

JBR had oversized underwear on and she wore BLACK pants Christmas day.

But was she wearing those oversized underwear when she was wearing the black velvet pants? I'd say no. Considering she'd had the too large underwear ever since the Rs "made the decision" to keep the underwear (according to Patsy) and Christmas night was the first night she'd ever worn any of them, I'd say she wasn't that keen on wearing them, or she'd have worn all the pairs as soon as she knew they were hers to keep, not leave them in the drawer and wait til weeks later to pull a pair out and put them on...coincidentally, the very same night she's killed and wiped down by her killer.

After Jayelles's experiment with the undies, I'd further say that it is my belief that no child would want to wear underwear that much too large for her, and if she had, it would have been obvious through her pants that she was wearing underwear that was way too big for her. She didn't have enough hip span to hold up the waistband of the underwear, and the crotch would have sagged way down to her knees (without pants), or bunched up around the tops of her thighs and been visible through her pants (with pants.)

Beyond that, don't you think LE had the velvet pants that JonBenet had worn tested against the fibers found on her to find out if her pants were the source?

[Zoey]

[QUOTE]After Jayelles's experiment with the undies, I'd further say that it is my belief that no child would want to wear underwear that much too large for her, and if she had, it would have been obvious through her pants that she was wearing underwear that was way too big for her. She didn't have enough hip span to hold up the waistband of the underwear, and the crotch would have sagged way down to her knees (without pants), or bunched up around the tops of her thighs and been visible through her pants (with pants.)

I never have believed Jayelle's experiment with the undies. And we have talked about this and talked about this on this forum. Size 12 underwear would not have been as big as Jayelle claims. I don't know where she came up with this experiment to begin with. It is totally misleading and incorrect. I refuse to put my granddaughter on the internet, but she is 2 years old and wears a size 4T underwear. Again, she is 2 years old. By the time she is 6, one can assume she will be in size 8-10. A size 12 would not hang down to her knees nor bunch up under her pants. IMO

Beyond that, don't you think LE had the velvet pants that JonBenet had worn tested against the fibers found on her to find out if her pants were the source?

One would hope so, wouldn't they?? Personally, I doubt they did. IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

I never have believed Jayelle's experiment with the undies. And we have talked about this and talked about this on this forum. Size 12 underwear would not have been as big as Jayelle claims. I don't know where she came up with this experiment to begin with. It is totally misleading and incorrect. I refuse to put my granddaughter on the internet, but she is 2 years old and wears a size 4T underwear. Again, she is 2 years old. By the time she is 6, one can assume she will be in size 8-10. A size 12 would not hang down to her knees nor bunch up under her pants. IMO

It's a good thing Jayelles is on this board, so you can take that up with her, and tell her just how you think she's wrong and how her experiment is misleading and incorrect.

Is your daughter the exact same as JonBenet? Same height and weight as JonBenet was at age 2? Meant to grow in the same propartions as JonBenet did? If not, then it's as unfair and as misleading to compare her to JonBenet as it would have been for a police officer to see if he could step over the RN in place of Patsy.

What size underwear were found in JonBenet's drawers, Zoey? Were they size 8/10? No, they were size 4/6.



One would hope so, wouldn't they?? Personally, I doubt they did. IMO.

I tend to think they did, but if they didn't, shame on them. Even if they didn't, you would think Lou Smit or any one of the investigators hired by the RST would have thought to run such tests. Oh, wait, that's right...John Ramsey hired people to keep him and his wife out of jail, not to search for the killer, and Lou Smit completely ignores the fiber evidence. Hmmmm...

[Zoey]

It's a good thing Jayelles is on this board, so you can take that up with her, and tell her just how you think she's wrong and how her experiment is misleading and incorrect.

Is your daughter the exact same as JonBenet? Same height and weight as JonBenet was at age 2? Meant to grow in the same propartions as JonBenet did? If not, then it's as unfair and as misleading to compare her to JonBenet as it would have been for a police officer to see if he could step over the RN in place of Patsy.

What size underwear were found in JonBenet's drawers, Zoey? Were they size 8/10? No, they were size 4/6.





I tend to think they did, but if they didn't, shame on them. Even if they didn't, you would think Lou Smit or any one of the investigators hired by the RST would have thought to run such tests. Oh, wait, that's right...John Ramsey hired people to keep him and his wife out of jail, not to search for the killer, and Lou Smit completely ignores the fiber evidence. Hmmmm...


Okay then, let's use my niece. Six years old. Same weight, same height, pretty much same build. Wears size 8-10. Or we could use my cousin.
Age 8. Little bigger than JB was at size 6. Wore a size 8-10, but really should have been in bigger ones, as she got infections on a regular basis. Finally found out it was because her panties were too tight in that area. IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

Okay then, let's use my niece. Six years old. Same weight, same height, pretty much same build. Wears size 8-10. Or we could use my cousin.
Age 8. Little bigger than JB was at size 6. Wore a size 8-10, but really should have been in bigger ones, as she got infections on a regular basis. Finally found out it was because her panties were too tight in that area. IMO.


Well, I tend to think that if the underwear were not obviously huge on JB, nothing ever would have been questioned about it. There would have been no reason to question it. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

Okay then, let's use my niece. Six years old. Same weight, same height, pretty much same build. Wears size 8-10. Or we could use my cousin.
Age 8. Little bigger than JB was at size 6. Wore a size 8-10, but really should have been in bigger ones, as she got infections on a regular basis. Finally found out it was because her panties were too tight in that area. IMO.

And what size underwear were found in JonBenet's drawer?

TWW is right - if it hadn't really obvious that JonBenet was wearing underwear that too big for her, investigators wouldn't have thought twice about it.

[Zoey]

And what size underwear were found in JonBenet's drawer?

TWW is right - if it hadn't really obvious that JonBenet was wearing underwear that too big for her, investigators wouldn't have thought twice about it.


Did they think twice about it before or after the panties in her drawer were discovered to be a smaller size? Is this when they went, hmmmm...maybe she shouldn't be wearing those size 12s. I'll bet after her mom strangled her and violated her, she put her in panties that were too big, you know, for staging purposes. :rolleyes: IMO.

[rashomon]

Okay then, let's use my niece. Six years old. Same weight, same height, pretty much same build. Wears size 8-10. Or we could use my cousin.
Age 8. Little bigger than JB was at size 6. Wore a size 8-10, but really should have been in bigger ones, as she got infections on a regular basis. Finally found out it was because her panties were too tight in that area. IMO.
Scroll down to the #25 post on the FFJ thread and look at poster koldkase's avatar: you can see how big those panties actually were. Poster Jayelles bought the original size 12 bloomies and made the (clay?) model based on JB's weight and height. Great work, Jayelles!
No way imo would JB have worn such overized panties.
I just read you have never believed Jayelles' experiment. Jayelles described to the GFFJ posters every stage of it in detail, she is very credible poster.
I think you don't want to believe that the panties are in fact that big.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8316&page=3&pp=12

[rashomon]

This simply not true; it is Rashoman 's flying carpet of imaginary fibers come back to life yet again.
It is Bullmoose's wishful thinking which makes him believe the incriminating fibers did not exist. But they did exist.

[Zoey]

Scroll down to the #25 post on the FFJ thread and look at poster koldkase's avatar: you can see how big those panties actually were. Poster Jayelles bought the original size 12 bloomies and made the (clay?) model based on JB's weight and height. Great work, Jayelles!
No way imo would JB have worn such overized panties.
I just read you have never believed Jayelles' experiment. Jayelles described to the GFFJ posters every stage of it in detail, she is very credible poster.
I think you don't want to believe that the panties are in fact that big.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8316&page=3&pp=12


No, I can't believe that she used a model and is trying to pass it off as being some type of exact replica. I have a real live body that I see at least once a week if not more often and can truthfully say that I have a tendancy to believe a human body as opposed to some "model" that Jayelles made up. IMO of course.

[nuisanceposter]

You're right, Rashomon, she doesn't want to believe it.

Zoey, did you read where Jayelles explains how she did the research on JonBenet's size and made her model based on measurements, etc, from a live child? Of course you didn't, or your comment wouldn't sound like you don't realize Jayelles has a "real live body" in her home matching JonBenet's measurements to work from.

[Zoey]

You're right, Rashomon, she doesn't want to believe it.

Zoey, did you read where Jayelles explains how she did the research on JonBenet's size and made her model based on measurements, etc, from a live child? Of course you didn't, or your comment wouldn't sound like you don't realize Jayelles has a "real live body" in her home matching JonBenet's measurements to work from.


I read every single word of it and don't believe it. It is like going to Bloomingdales and finding a mannequin that is your exact measurements, but when you go to try on the clothes, they do not fit.

Yeah, she did research on JB"s size and measurements. Doesn't mean she got it exactly right, now does it?

You cannot get a model to be the exact same as a real human body. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

IF what was important to JonBenet about the underpants was that they said Wednesday AND that they were new I don't think she would necessarily care that much if they were too big. Just as little girls don't care that the dresses they play "Dress-up" in are too big. They still feel beautiful in them. Wednesday is one of the first days kids learn to 'read' in the days of the week series. That she could pick out the correct day may have over-ridden all other considerations.

[nuisanceposter]

I doubt JonBenet was able to read script, Louisa, and the Wednesday on the undies was written in script. "Wednesday" written in script doesn't stand out very much from the other days, because script usually confuses children. The Rs said she needed help reading the names on Christmas presents, and you'd think she'd be familiar with what the names of her family members looked like by age 6. At least more so than she'd be familiar with the word Wednesday. We don't know for sure that she could pick out days of the week, and if she couldn't pick out "Burke" or "Mommy" or "Patsy" or even "JonBenet" on a gift tag, I'd think she may not have been able to pick out Wednesday in script.

If she wanted those underwear, and she and Patsy "made the decision" to keep them (because Patsy won't fess up to it without indicating it was JB's idea too), why did she wait until Christmas Day to wear them? If she liked them so much, you'd expect that she'd begin wearing them the same day she and Patsy "made the decision" to keep them for JB instead of send them to Jenny. She was given the undies prior to Christmas Day, so why wouldn't she have begun wearing them before then? Why is the day she was found dead the only day she was ever dressed in a pair of them?

Doesn't any of that seem odd at all to you?

[Sharon]

IF what was important to JonBenet about the underpants was that they said Wednesday AND that they were new I don't think she would necessarily care that much if they were too big. Just as little girls don't care that the dresses they play "Dress-up" in are too big. They still feel beautiful in them. Wednesday is one of the first days kids learn to 'read' in the days of the week series. That she could pick out the correct day may have over-ridden all other considerations.

That sounds right going by my kids!

[Sprocket]

I read every single word of it and don't believe it. It is like going to Bloomingdales and finding a mannequin that is your exact measurements, but when you go to try on the clothes, they do not fit.

Yeah, she did research on JB"s size and measurements. Doesn't mean she got it exactly right, now does it?

You cannot get a model to be the exact same as a real human body. IMO

It is much easier isn't it Zoey, to just deny it all instead of trying to come up with a logical argument to refute Jayelle's experiment?

So, I wonder how they make those real life replicas as the Hollywood Wax Museum? Saying you can not make an exact copy of a human body is ridiculous. It's done all the time. And when you have a real life body to copy, it makes it much easier than if you didn't.

The fact the Jayelles relied on a real-life model in her own home to base her replica on says she got the porportions right.

If you're going to try on clothes, I wouldn't recommend someone who is on the heavy end of a misses size 12 (or even a womens size 12) to try to fit into a junior size 11 or 13. The cuts are totally different to accomodate the different shapes in women's bodies. However, we are talking about children's undergarments here, lol! JonBenet was an average sized child. She was slim; she was not over weight. We can come to this conclusion because of the many photographs of her parading around in tights and close fitting outfits on stage. Are you trying to say that a dramatic size difference in underwear would not be detectable on a child of JonBenet's size?

Logic does get thrown out the window here it seems, when a no one can actually put the words together to forum a cohesive rebuttal argument, supported by facts. I haven't seen an explaination from the Ramseys' for these size 12 undies found on JonBenets body, and I haven't seen one from their supporters, either.

[Zoey]

It is much easier isn't it Zoey, to just deny it all instead of trying to come up with a logical argument to refute Jayelle's experiment?

So, I wonder how they make those real life replicas as the Hollywood Wax Museum? Saying you can not make an exact copy of a human body is ridiculous. It's done all the time. And when you have a real life body to copy, it makes it much easier than if you didn't.

The fact the Jayelles relied on a real-life model in her own home to base her replica on says she got the porportions right.

If you're going to try on clothes, I wouldn't recommend someone who is on the heavy end of a misses size 12 (or even a womens size 12) to try to fit into a junior size 11 or 13. The cuts are totally different to accomodate the different shapes in women's bodies. However, we are talking about children's undergarments here, lol! JonBenet was an average sized child. She was slim; she was not over weight. We can come to this conclusion because of the many photographs of her parading around in tights and close fitting outfits on stage. Are you trying to say that a dramatic size difference in underwear would not be detectable on a child of JonBenet's size?

Logic does get thrown out the window here it seems, when a no one can actually put the words together to forum a cohesive rebuttal argument, supported by facts. I haven't seen an explaination from the Ramseys' for these size 12 undies found on JonBenets body, and I haven't seen one from their supporters, either.


It just goes right along with everything else that is argued about on these boards between the different sides of the fence. If I were to post a picture of my granddaughter, niece and cousin on this forum wearing underwear in the respective sizes I have explained to you that they were, every single RDI would come out of the woodwork proclaiming there is no way to say any of my relatives could be used as a model as they could not be the "exact size" of JB.

Also, size depends on store. Wal-Mart panties run smaller than JC Penny panties in children's sizes. Dillards run a lot different than K-Mart. I believe Bloomingdale's, being a high dollar story, the panties more than likely ran larger than panties from Wal-Mart would run. IMO and my experience buying panties for little girls.

[rashomon]

Logic does get thrown out the window here it seems, when a no one can actually put the words together to forum a cohesive rebuttal argument, supported by facts. I haven't seen an explaination from the Ramseys' for these size 12 undies found on JonBenets body, and I haven't seen one from their supporters, either.
I had the impression that Patsy got pretty flustered and incoherent when being asked about the panties ...

[Louisdelmar]IF what was important to JonBenet about the underpants was that they said Wednesday AND that they were new I don't think she would necessarily care that much if they were too big.
Imo it was important to the stager(s) of the scene that 'Wednesday' was written on the underpants. For the Ramseys' story was that JB had been abducted from her bed, therefore her 'still' wearing her Dec 25 Wednesday underpants when found would conveniently confirm their story.

Nuisanceposter: good point about the "Wednesday" being written in script, which children of JonBenet's age would have had problems deciphering.

[Athena]

You're right, Rashomon, she doesn't want to believe it.

Zoey, did you read where Jayelles explains how she did the research on JonBenet's size and made her model based on measurements, etc, from a live child? Of course you didn't, or your comment wouldn't sound like you don't realize Jayelles has a "real live body" in her home matching JonBenet's measurements to work from.

Yes - and I had issues with that as well. Just because a child is near the same height or weight doesn't mean that their weight is not distributed differently. Some kids have flat butts and some don't -- some children have no waist and some children do. Some children have heavier thighs than others. That clay model did nothing for me. And MOST 5/6 Year old children wear a size larger than their age which would have made her underwear a size 6 to 8 not 4 to 6.

The elastic around the waist would have been enough to hold up underwear even two sizes too big.
I know MANY parents that buy everything larger because kids grow so fast and it gets expensive.
Try it yourself. Buy a pair of elastic waist underwear two sizes too big and I guarantee they will stay up.

[Louisadelmar]

I doubt JonBenet was able to read script, Louisa, and the Wednesday on the undies was written in script. "Wednesday" written in script doesn't stand out very much from the other days, because script usually confuses children. The Rs said she needed help reading the names on Christmas presents, and you'd think she'd be familiar with what the names of her family members looked like by age 6. At least more so than she'd be familiar with the word Wednesday. We don't know for sure that she could pick out days of the week, and if she couldn't pick out "Burke" or "Mommy" or "Patsy" or even "JonBenet" on a gift tag, I'd think she may not have been able to pick out Wednesday in script.

If she wanted those underwear, and she and Patsy "made the decision" to keep them (because Patsy won't fess up to it without indicating it was JB's idea too), why did she wait until Christmas Day to wear them? If she liked them so much, you'd expect that she'd begin wearing them the same day she and Patsy "made the decision" to keep them for JB instead of send them to Jenny. She was given the undies prior to Christmas Day, so why wouldn't she have begun wearing them before then? Why is the day she was found dead the only day she was ever dressed in a pair of them?

Doesn't any of that seem odd at all to you?

But the reason kids are able to pick out the word Wednesday most easily is it is longer than any other day of the week. That's true whether it's written in script or printed. All she had to do was look for the longest day.

I just think people are putting too much importance on Patsy's decision to keep the underwear. I often make that kind of spur of the moment decision. As to why JonBenet didn't wear them earlier, who knows? Maybe she wanted to wear the new underpants because she was wearing her new Gap outfit. One could just as logically ask why is the day she was found dead the only day she ever dressed in the Gap outfit?

[Sprocket]

Also, size depends on store. Wal-Mart panties run smaller than JC Penny panties in children's sizes. Dillards run a lot different than K-Mart. I believe Bloomingdale's, being a high dollar story, the panties more than likely ran larger than panties from Wal-Mart would run. IMO and my experience buying panties for little girls.

Then you missed the point of the panty comparison completely. Because Jayelles purchased the same brand of underwear, made exclusively for Bloomingdales Dept. stores that JonBenet had on her. She had a side by side comparison of the sizes and the quite noticable difference in their sizes. You also ignore the fact (several sources) that the only size of underwear in her clothing drawers was the smaller size.

[shill]

Funny how you see little girls playing dress up in their mommies oversized clothes, walking around in high heels so big on them that they could fit both feet in one shoe.
But people can't believe that JB by herself might have put those panties on that she wanted so badly for herself she begged that they would not be given away as a gift.

[Sprocket]

If I were to post a picture of my granddaughter, niece and cousin on this forum wearing underwear in the respective sizes I have explained to you that they were, every single RDI would come out of the woodwork proclaiming there is no way to say any of my relatives could be used as a model as they could not be the "exact size" of JB.

I'm actually seeing an "if only, then" argument here, which has no basis in fact. Very similar to the ol' woe is me, if only (name your sad event here didn't happen) then (name your better outcome/event would have happened here. There's no factual basis for it.

If you have a child near the same weight and height as JonBenet, go ahead and buy the exact same underwear and do the same experiment Jayelles did. Put them on your child and see how they fit. Reason with yourself (I know, pretty hard) to see if your child would actually put these on their body.

After you actually do that, only then will you know what RDI's will say about it. Specualtion with out facts to back is up is just whining ramblings without substantial evidence.

[Sprocket]

Funny how you see little girls playing dress up in their mommies oversized clothes, walking around in high heels so big on them that they could fit both feet in one shoe.
But people can't believe that JB by herself might have put those panties on that she wanted so badly for herself she begged that they would not be given away as a gift.

The problem with this statement is, JonBenet didn't have to put on her mothers clothes to play dressup. Patsy often dressed herself and JonBenet alike. Documented fact. And you have to acknowledge that there is quite a difference between outer garment "dress up" vs undergarments. If you deny that, let's see some logical arguments to back up that denial. Besides, JonBenet already had a TON of pagent outfits to dress up in, that fit her. lol.. Unlike most little girls. Why dress up in mom's clothes, when you've got this fantastic hand made wardrobe of sequined outfits to wear?

[Zoey]

Specualtion with out facts to back is up is just whining ramblings without substantial evidence.


Something the RDI's are experts at. Still waiting on Tobers links for all his "facts".

[Zoey]

The problem with this statement is, JonBenet didn't have to put on her mothers clothes to play dressup. Patsy often dressed herself and JonBenet alike. Documented fact. And you have to acknowledge that there is quite a difference between outer garment "dress up" vs undergarments. If you deny that, let's see some logical arguments to back up that denial. Besides, JonBenet already had a TON of pagent outfits to dress up in, that fit her. lol.. Unlike most little girls. Why dress up in mom's clothes, when you've got this fantastic hand made wardrobe of sequined outfits to wear?


Because little girls love to play dress up in the mommy's clothes. They don't want the clothes that fit them and the clothes they wear all the time. They want to play mommy in mommy's clothes.

[rashomon]

[Shill]Funny how you see little girls playing dress up in their mommies oversized clothes, walking around in high heels so big on them that they could fit both feet in one shoe.
But people can't believe that JB by herself might have put those panties on that she wanted so badly for herself she begged that they would not be given away as a gift.
But those oversized panties would have bulged under her velvet pants, which would have looked quite strange.
Because little girls love to play dress up in the mommy's clothes. They don't want the clothes that fit them and the clothes they wear all the time. They want to play mommy in mommy's clothes.
I doubt JB or any other little girl put on their mother's underpants when playing dress up.

[rashomon]

There is some interesting medical info about subdural hemorrhage on this site:

http://www.realsundancekid.com/

The morbidity and mortality of subdural blood is due to various mechanisms. For example, large space-occupying subdural hematomas exert massive pressure effects on the brain, and are often associated with brain swelling. In cases of individuals with limited post-injury survival, a film or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen grossly in a severe head injury. In these circumstances, the subdural blood is important in that it is a manifestation of diffuse traumatic brain injury.
If I remember correctly, Elvislives wrote that subdural hematomas are always associated with brain swelling. But here it says "often", not "always".
Elvislives also wrote that in severe head injuries, there is always massive hemorrhaging in the brain, whereas here it says that often only a film of or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen in a severe head injury.

I'm still looking for info about blood organization in head injuries or lack thereof.

[bullmoose]

I'm actually seeing an "if only, then" argument here, which has no basis in fact. Very similar to the ol' woe is me, if only (name your sad event here didn't happen) then (name your better outcome/event would have happened here. There's no factual basis for it.

If you have a child near the same weight and height as JonBenet, go ahead and buy the exact same underwear and do the same experiment Jayelles did. Put them on your child and see how they fit. Reason with yourself (I know, pretty hard) to see if your child would actually put these on their body.

After you actually do that, only then will you know what RDI's will say about it. Specualtion with out facts to back is up is just whining ramblings without substantial evidence.Wait just a doggone minute
here, Tober is on your side of the fence, don't badmouth him for his bad ways; thats the job of the IDI's. JMHO:biggrin:

[Sprocket]

The post I was referring to bull, was #87, by Zoey, not Tober.

[shill]

The problem with this statement is, JonBenet didn't have to put on her mothers clothes to play dressup. Patsy often dressed herself and JonBenet alike. Documented fact. And you have to acknowledge that there is quite a difference between outer garment "dress up" vs undergarments. If you deny that, let's see some logical arguments to back up that denial. Besides, JonBenet already had a TON of pagent outfits to dress up in, that fit her. lol.. Unlike most little girls. Why dress up in mom's clothes, when you've got this fantastic hand made wardrobe of sequined outfits to wear?

You totally missed the point, no surprise.

The panties being oversized would not effect JB's decision to wear them.

[Sprocket]

You totally missed the point, no surprise.

The panties being oversized would not effect JB's decision to wear them.

Rashomon answers this perfectly

But those oversized panties would have bulged under her velvet pants, which would have looked quite strange.

She wasn't at home, playing "dress up" in someone else's oversized bloomies. She was going to a party at the Whites.

[aussiesheila]

If memory serves, Dr. Spitz did not give a time frame. He only stated that JB was still alive when strangled.


Correct. One can't switch gears from rage attack to staging immediately afterward.

But don't forget that it works both ways: how logical is it for a sexual predator to whack JB on the head and then immediately garrote her?

rashomon, come on, you know my theory, in it there are four pedophiles, only one is required to operate the garotte. That leaves three free to pick up a baseball bat and bash her over the head simeltaneous to the garotte operator fatally tightening the garotte. Perfectly, totally logical.

Which leaves your theory of a rage attack followed within seconds by a garotte strangulation staging alone in the realm of the illogical. Even the BPD have discarded that idea, which, if you read the Atlanta 200 interviews you can see for yourself.

If you want to continue jumping through hoops to enable you to cling to your belief that the interim was more than just a few seconds, then who am I to try to stop you? I have posted I don't know how many replies pointing out to you that it is not possible but you chose to ignore them. So I'm finished with that.

[aussiesheila]

As opposed to that, how do we know how 'thorough' Dr. Meyer was?
For example, instead of using a sterile nail clipper fo each finger, he used one single nail clipper for all ten, thus possibly contaminating forensic evidence.How do you know that was not standard procedure rather than a lack of 'thoroughness' on Dr. Meyer's part?

What is more, sometimes the same fingernail clippers were used in different autopsy projects. (Source: ACandyRose site)That was an allegation made to discredit him, not a fact.

There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB. But these things from the autopsy report are listed in the so-called 'Bonita papers', the notes of Bonita Sauer. She was the secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the lawyers the BPD had hired as consultants on the case, and had access to a lot in inside info. So who do you think collected the fibres in the first place? And then sent them off to the lab for microscopic analysis? Of course Meyer is not going to write in detail on the fibres. He leaves that to the fibre experts who analyse them using technical equipment which is not set up in the autopsy room.

What is your point, rashomon?

[aussiesheila]

Oh, I think I know. Meyer was incompetent. Didn't recognise blood clots on a body that were clearly obvious to world famous "I've done 50,000 autopsies" Spitz when he viewed the photographs of the body.

[rashomon]

How do you know that was not standard procedure rather than a lack of 'thoroughness' on Dr. Meyer's part?

Quote from ST's book on the ACR site:
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers hould have been used for each finger.
From this I infer that separate and sterile clippers should have been used on each finger.
[rashomon] What is more, sometimes the same fingernail clippers were used in different autopsy projects. (Source: ACandyRose site)

[AS]"That was an allegation made to discredit him, not a fact."

Aussiesheila, it was a fact:
[ST]Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
So who do you think collected the fibres in the first place? And then sent them off to the lab for microscopic analysis? Of course Meyer is not going to write in detail on the fibres. He leaves that to the fibre experts who analyse them using technical equipment which is not set up in the autopsy room. What is your point, rashomon?

You obviously have not followed the discussion, therefore I'll repeat it: the issue was not about fibers found at the crime scene in general, but about fibers found on the body, and of course a coroner has to note their existence, and they are bagged and put into evidence.
According to the Bonita papers, this was in fact done, but Dr. Meyer's 9 page report doesn't mention it. From this one can infer that the actual autopsy file was much larger than the thin nine-page report which we have access to.

[rashomon]

Oh, I think I know. Meyer was incompetent. Didn't recognise blood clots on a body that were clearly obvious to world famous "I've done 50,000 autopsies" Spitz when he viewed the photographs of the body.
Aussie: And how many official autopsy reports has this poster ever written in her life? None. So we only have one internet poster's opinion on what Meyer 'should have' included in his autopsy report. This poster (ER doc) said that she is no ME, therefore she has never written an official autopsy report herself.

BTW, I have found some interesting medical info on
subdural hemorrhage which imo casts some doubt on what Elvislives wrote:

http://www.realsundancekid.com/


Quote:
The morbidity and mortality of subdural blood is due to various mechanisms. For example, large space-occupying subdural hematomas exert massive pressure effects on the brain, and are often associated with brain swelling. In cases of individuals with limited post-injury survival, a film or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen grossly in a severe head injury. In these circumstances, the subdural blood is important in that it is a manifestation of diffuse traumatic brain injury.

If I remember correctly, Elvislives wrote that subdural hematomas are always associated with brain swelling. But here it says "often", not "always".
Elvislives also wrote that in severe head injuries, there is always massive hemorrhaging in the brain, whereas here it says that often only a film of or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen in a severe head injury.

I'm still looking for info about blood organization in head injuries or lack thereof.

[Louisadelmar]

[ST]Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."

Because this comes from a highly biased source I have to wonder if ST knows about autoclaves. Does he think new instruments are bought for each surgery done in a hospital? I expect the ME did use the same instruments on different subjects. Thomas doesn't say the ME used the same clippers on different subjects without cleaning them but that is the impression he wants to convey.

[Athena]

I doubt JonBenet was able to read script, Louisa, and the Wednesday on the undies was written in script. "Wednesday" written in script doesn't stand out very much from the other days, because script usually confuses children. The Rs said she needed help reading the names on Christmas presents, and you'd think she'd be familiar with what the names of her family members looked like by age 6. At least more so than she'd be familiar with the word Wednesday. We don't know for sure that she could pick out days of the week, and if she couldn't pick out "Burke" or "Mommy" or "Patsy" or even "JonBenet" on a gift tag, I'd think she may not have been able to pick out Wednesday in script.

If she wanted those underwear, and she and Patsy "made the decision" to keep them (because Patsy won't fess up to it without indicating it was JB's idea too), why did she wait until Christmas Day to wear them? If she liked them so much, you'd expect that she'd begin wearing them the same day she and Patsy "made the decision" to keep them for JB instead of send them to Jenny. She was given the undies prior to Christmas Day, so why wouldn't she have begun wearing them before then? Why is the day she was found dead the only day she was ever dressed in a pair of them?

Doesn't any of that seem odd at all to you?

JBR was said to have started reading at age 3. It is very possible to recognize a Capital W in script and is the only day of week that begins with a W.

Better yet lay out days of the week panties and ask a 5 year old to pick out Wednesday. I have not doubt she will be able to do it. JMO

[shill]

Rashomon answers this perfectly



She wasn't at home, playing "dress up" in someone else's oversized bloomies. She was going to a party at the Whites.

Boxer shorts are oversized once your past the waste band, you just stuff them in.
You act as if JB never wore pull-ups underneath, I'm sure thin panties slightly oversized would not be a problem.

RDIs are always trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[shill]

"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers hould have been used for each finger".How is this cross contamination? It would only hinder an investigation in not knowing which finger the sample came from, but it was only JB's fingers. What ever is there is there and is not going to be destroyed or contaminated with this procedure. It's for "optimal" purposes but that does not mean that what was found is in error. It's just ST attempt to discredit any DNA findings.

[Sprocket]

Boxer shorts are oversized once your past the waste band, you just stuff them in.
You act as if JB never wore pull-ups underneath, I'm sure thin panties slightly oversized would not be a problem.

RDIs are always trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I don't act at all, and I've never mentioned pull-ups. Where is a source that says the underwear JonBenet was wearing were "boxer shorts?" They were store brand underwear from Bloomingdales called "Bloomies."

[Sprocket]

How is this cross contamination?

Standard evidence gathering proceedure for clipping nails: separate nail clipper for each nail. I'm surprised that you don't know this.

[aussiesheila]

One thing we will agree on, Nuisanceposter. Tober does make excellent posts.Well maybe he does zippo, but in this particular case he most certainly hasn't IMO. I see it as an underhand attempt to invalidate the opinions of those who think the crime was commited by someone who wanted to 'get at' John by implying their motive for believing this is simply to portray the Ramseys as victims and therefore not eligible to be seen as the perpetrators.

I see it as yet another indication that the belief in the RDI theory cannot be sustained by the evidence as we now know it. Now that the former Eller-led BPD investigation squad has been taken over by a new team and people become aware of the new evidence and the new line of investigation being pursued, then surely as they do, they must be able to see the flaws in Thomas belief in Ramsey guilt, based as it was, on 'pseudo' facts.

When people cannot defend their theory with logic but are determined to keep on believing in it, their only recourse is to attack the opposition. And if they don't have any logical means by which to attack the opposing view then they have to resort to attacking those who hold such views. I am only stating here what everyone knows. And I think the RDIs are in denial that this is what, dare I say it, all their criticisms of non-RDI theories amount to. (Apart from those who have seriously considered an opposing view and genuinely find it unbelievable for whatever reason.)

And I think that post 31 by Tober is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

[rashomon]

rashomon, come on, you know my theory, in it there are four pedophiles, only one is required to operate the garotte. That leaves three free to pick up a baseball bat and bash her over the head simeltaneous to the garotte operator fatally tightening the garotte. Perfectly, totally logical.

Which leaves your theory of a rage attack followed within seconds by a garotte strangulation staging alone in the realm of the illogical. Even the BPD have discarded that idea, which, if you read the Atlanta 200 interviews you can see for yourself.

If you want to continue jumping through hoops to enable you to cling to your belief that the interim was more than just a few seconds, then who am I to try to stop you? I have posted I don't know how many replies pointing out to you that it is not possible but you chose to ignore them. So I'm finished with that.
Aussie, you must be mixing up something here, for my theory has never been a rage attack followed by an immediate garrote strangulation staging (???) Would you elaborate please.

[rashomon]

Boxer shorts are oversized once your past the waste band, you just stuff them in.
You act as if JB never wore pull-ups underneath, I'm sure thin panties slightly oversized would not be a problem.

RDIs are always trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

If memory serves, JB wore the pull-ups to bed, which is a different issue.

BTW, if a six-year-old is wearing pull-ups at daytime, this is a red flag indicating serious problems.

[shill]

I don't act at all, and I've never mentioned pull-ups. Where is a source that says the underwear JonBenet was wearing were "boxer shorts?" They were store brand underwear from Bloomingdales called "Bloomies."

I didn't mean that JB wore boxers. I wear boxers and they are baggy and bunch up if you don't stuff them down the pant legs. And thousands of men also wear boxers and there seems to be no worry about the "bulge look".

I'm inferring that you don't know JB wore pull-ups. If you did, you would not have agreed with Roshamon's statement, "But those oversized panties would have bulged under her velvet pants, which would have looked quite strange".

JB would be use to the bulge look, and I would think pull-ups make more of a bulge then panties.

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, you must be mixing up something here, for my theory has never been a rage attack followed by an immediate garrote strangulation staging (???) Would you elaborate please.I apologise rashomon, for getting your theory wrong. All the more reason for me to ask again, for people who have a theory to write it down in it's entirety and start a new thread with it.

I thought your theory was that Patsy killed JonBenet accidentally with the head bash and then covered it up by staging a strangulation killing by some unknown other. Basically your theory as I understand it, requires that there had to have been a considerable lapse of time after the head bash to have allowed for the strangulation materials to have been collected and applied to JonBenet. This is what I believe you cannot reconcile with the evidence. But please, go ahead and post your theory. I've been thinking of posting mine but I don't want to be the first to do it.

[shill]

Standard evidence gathering proceedure for clipping nails: separate nail clipper for each nail. I'm surprised that you don't know this.

Apparently it's not the standard, because it wasn't done that way.

I'm surprised you missed ST's quote saying "optimum", he didn't say "standard".

[bullmoose]

Quote from ST's book on the ACR site:

From this I infer that separate and sterile clippers should have been used on each finger.


[AS]"That was an allegation made to discredit him, not a fact."

Aussiesheila, it was a fact:

You obviously have not followed the discussion, therefore I'll repeat it: the issue was not about fibers found at the crime scene in general, but about fibers found on the body, and of course a coroner has to note their existence, and they are bagged and put into evidence.
According to the Bonita papers, this was in fact done, but Dr. Meyer's 9 page report doesn't mention it. From this one can infer that the actual autopsy file was much larger than the thin nine-page report which we have access to.My heart is going to burst out of my chest; do I get to choose between the Bonita papers and ST's Twisterpiece on medical issues; oh my, what a choice; its like choosing between Mao and Pol Pot for humanitarian of the year awards, isn't it? The Twister says use a separate clipper for each finger, wait a minute, this is a Twisted form of Simon Says, isn't it? No thanks, I don't want to play Twister Says This or That, I already got the book. Not convincing to me.:biggrin: JMHO

[Athena]

Quote from ST's book on the ACR site:

From this I infer that separate and sterile clippers should have been used on each finger.


[AS]"That was an allegation made to discredit him, not a fact."

Aussiesheila, it was a fact:

You obviously have not followed the discussion, therefore I'll repeat it: the issue was not about fibers found at the crime scene in general, but about fibers found on the body, and of course a coroner has to note their existence, and they are bagged and put into evidence.
According to the Bonita papers, this was in fact done, but Dr. Meyer's 9 page report doesn't mention it. From this one can infer that the actual autopsy file was much larger than the thin nine-page report which we have access to.

No offense but the Bonita papers is the biggest joke out of any documentation I have read on this case short of that aliens did it. Those papers are written like a novel and a fictional one at that. JMO

[Sharon]

[
Imo it was important to the stager(s) of the scene that 'Wednesday' was written on the underpants. For the Ramseys' story was that JB had been abducted from her bed, therefore her 'still' wearing her Dec 25 Wednesday underpants when found would conveniently confirm their story.

Wow, those stages really thought of EVERYTHING. It`s like everything has a secret, criptic, hidden message of infinately careful staging. Now, I know that even the undies were staged....because......they had Wednesday (instead of Thursday??) writen on them!
jmo

[aussiesheila]

Quote from ST's book on the ACR site:

"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers hould have been used for each finger."

From this I infer that separate and sterile clippers should have been used on each finger.


[AS]"That was an allegation made to discredit him, not a fact."

Aussiesheila, it was a fact:
Quote from Steve Thomas:
"Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."

As far as I am concerned nothing Steve Thomas says can be accepted as fact. If you cannot find any other source to back up your claim that using the same the clippers for all ten fingernails was not standard procedure and that the clippers he used were not sterile then I choose not to believe it.

IMO Steve Thomas twisted all kinds of information so that he could make a case against Patsy and he has lost all credibility as far as I am concerned. Feel free to believe him if you want, but don't use him as a source when arguing with me thanks.

[aussiesheila]

You obviously have not followed the discussion, therefore I'll repeat it: the issue was not about fibers found at the crime scene in general, but about fibers found on the body, and of course a coroner has to note their existence, and they are bagged and put into evidence.
According to the Bonita papers, this was in fact done, but Dr. Meyer's 9 page report doesn't mention it. From this one can infer that the actual autopsy file was much larger than the thin nine-page report which we have access to.I don't know which part of the discussion you are referring to rashomon. I WAS talking about the fibers found on the body, and NOT the fibers found at the crime scene in general, as you seem to have concluded. So I would say you obviously have not followed my line of reasoning, therefore I'll repeat it:

From Meyer’s autopsy report:

EVIDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and Hair from clothing and body surfaces; usw…

So Meyer does mention in the autopsy report that he noted their existence, and bagged them and put into evidence. What are you talking about?



This whole argument began when you stated in your post 24

“There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB.”



Which I responded to by saying in my post 105

So who do you think collected the fibres in the first place? And then sent them off to the lab for microscopic analysis? Of course Meyer is not going to write in detail on the fibres. He leaves that to the fibre experts who analyse them using technical equipment which is not set up in the autopsy room.


And then I get the above nonsensical reply from you.

[aussiesheila]

Aussie: And how many official autopsy reports has this poster ever written in her life? None. So we only have one internet poster's opinion on what Meyer 'should have' included in his autopsy report. This poster (ER doc) said that she is no ME, therefore she has never written an official autopsy report herself.What is the point of this comment? Not satisfied with the evidence as stated in the autopsy report? Can't get it to 'fit' with your theory? Attempting to discredit the author of the autopsy report, so that you can go on believing in the correctness of your theory?

[rashomon]

IMO Steve Thomas twisted all kinds of information so that he could make a case against Patsy and he has lost all credibility as far as I am concerned. Feel free to believe him if you want, but don't use him as a source when arguing with me thanks.
Aussie, you can rant against ST all you want, but remember that e.g. no member of he CBI lab has ever come forward and claimed that ST published fiber evidence info against the Ramseys which didn't exist. Not even their attack dog lawyer Lin Wood stated that the fiber evidence did not exist.

[aussiesheila]

BTW, I have found some interesting medical info on
subdural hemorrhage which imo casts some doubt on what Elvislives wrote:

http://www.realsundancekid.com/


Quote:
The morbidity and mortality of subdural blood is due to various mechanisms. For example, large space-occupying subdural hematomas exert massive pressure effects on the brain, and are often associated with brain swelling. In cases of individuals with limited post-injury survival, a film or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen grossly in a severe head injury. In these circumstances, the subdural blood is important in that it is a manifestation of diffuse traumatic brain injury.

If I remember correctly, Elvislives wrote that subdural hematomas are always associated with brain swelling. But here it says "often", not "always".
Elvislives also wrote that in severe head injuries, there is always massive hemorrhaging in the brain, whereas here it says that often only a film of or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen in a severe head injury.

I'm still looking for info about blood organization in head injuries or lack thereof.If elvis was still here she could, no doubt have argued her case in the highly professional and competent manner in which she replied to all your posts. Having played a large part in causing her unfortunate departure from this forum, which I have to say I personally consider an enormous loss, I am pretty dismayed that you continue to bring her name into discussions in which she cannot participate and in which you continue to denigrate what IMO and that of many others, were incredibly informed and enlightening opinions.

So I am not buying into any further discussions with you on head injuries rashomon.

[rashomon]

If elvis was still here she could, no doubt have argued her case in the highly professional and competent manner in which she replied to all your posts. Having played a large part in causing her unfortunate departure from this forum, which I have to say I personally consider an enormous loss, I am pretty dismayed that you continue to bring her name into discussions in which she cannot participate and in which you continue to denigrate what IMO and that of many others, were incredibly informed and enlightening opinions.

So I am not buying into any further discussions with you on head injuries rashomon.
Aussie, if you have followed the case discussion here and my exchanges with Elivislives on this forum about the forensic evidence concerning medical issues (in which you, to my knowledge, never participated), it must be clear to you that I continue to bring up her name here, since her sudden departure from this forum has left a lot of these questions unanswered.
I would have have many questions to ask of her, and refuse to take the blame for having played a "large part in causing her unfortunate departure from this forum".

For remember all I had asked her was to provide a link to back up her claim that JB died immediately after the head injury.

[andU]

Rash, I recall you questioning Elvislives ceditials and being just short of rude to her. You disinvited her from the board by your rude postings to her. She brought insight and was not biased in her opinions. Her posts were very informative. You seem to go on and on and on about things and then return to the unending circle that your posts take. The pineapple, the fibers... you want to argue with someone whether he/she agrees with you or not. I am by no means attacking you, you have a right to your opinion, just as every poster to the board does. But, geeze! lighten up, huh?

[Louisadelmar]

Aussie, if you have followed the case discussion here and my exchanges with Elivislives on this forum about the forensic evidence concerning medical issues (in which you, to my knowledge, never participated), it must be clear to you that I continue to bring up her name here, since her sudden departure from this forum has left a lot of these questions unanswered.
I would have have many questions to ask of her, and refuse to take the blame for having played a "large part in causing her unfortunate departure from this forum".

For remember all I had asked her was to provide a link to back up her claim that JB died immediately after the head injury.

You may "refuse to take blame"all you want. But blame, indeed, falls on you, Whiskey and Sprocket.


http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280581&page=12

Rashomon, Whiskey and Sprocket: I am not entirely sure what I have done or said to elicit such contempt and disrespect from you. My purpose in posting here was to gain a greater understanding in what transpired in this unsolved crime.

Rash: the reason I have taken the time to discuss things with you is because you initially seemed to be a very intelligent person and I thought we could learn a lot from each other. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish. If you want to believe that the head wound originated 20-60 minutes before death, that is certainly your right and you are in good company.

Whiskey: You as well are entitled to your beliefs. I do understand that your viewpoint has been reported in the media and you can certainly believe what you want. I was only asking you to provide an explanation for your views and was not intending to be condescending in any way.

Sprocket; I am not an ME nor have I ever claimed to be. I am an MD and the reason I chose my particular specialty (emergency medicine) is because I am female and even in med school and residency I knew I would some day have children and wanted the flexibility to work when I wanted and not be tied to a practice where I had the burden of patients for whom I had to be available 24/7. My specialty allows me to go to work as much as I want but also to be available to volunteer in my children's classroom as well as pursue a number of other extracurricular activities, including this board. I am not a paid consultant for this case and therefore am not willing to post my medical license and degrees on this website. Obviously that would not only reveal the state where I practice, where I attended school, but also my personal identity. As I stated I am a mother with children and do not want the attention of some of unstable posters on this board.

To all the reasonable and intelligent posters who post here: whether IDI, RDI or FS I have truly enjoyed discussing this case with you. Many of you have given me a perspective on the case that I would otherwise not enjoy. I will be taking a break from this board, perhaps permanently, but at least for a while. Tho the majority of posters here are of the highest integrity and caliber, there are just too many weirdos for my tastes. One thing I admire about all of you, regardless of your theory, is that you genuinely seem interested in nothing more than justice for a little girl who did not deserve to die. I wish you all the best! Elvis:seeya:

[Athena]

Rash, I recall you questioning Elvislives ceditials and being just short of rude to her. You disinvited her from the board by your rude postings to her. She brought insight and was not biased in her opinions. Her posts were very informative. You seem to go on and on and on about things and then return to the unending circle that your posts take. The pineapple, the fibers... you want to argue with someone whether he/she agrees with you or not. I am by no means attacking you, you have a right to your opinion, just as every poster to the board does. But, geeze! lighten up, huh?

I'm responding to Rash's post here because I went back a couple and could not find the original:

What Rash did was took Elvis' posts to another forum in an attempt to discredit her instead of arguing the points on this forum where they were posted. It was totally rude since Elvis could not defend herself on the other forum since she doesn't post there. Elvis took more time answering Rash's questions than any others on this forum and Rash could have done research then when Elvis could have responded. NOW she chooses to do it when Elvis is gone. Rash has lost all credibility as far as I am concerned as the research should have been done then and after the fact has no merit. Had Elvis agreed with Rash's line of thnking this would not have been done and therein lies the issue. Elvis was not even IDI that is what makes it more ironic. She spoke the truth and was totally unbiased and this forum lost a valuable resource not to mention Rash considers Delmar England and the Secretary that wrote the Bonita Papers credible. JMHO

[Athena]

There is some interesting medical info about subdural hemorrhage on this site:

http://www.realsundancekid.com/


If I remember correctly, Elvislives wrote that subdural hematomas are always associated with brain swelling. But here it says "often", not "always".
Elvislives also wrote that in severe head injuries, there is always massive hemorrhaging in the brain, whereas here it says that often only a film of or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen in a severe head injury.

I'm still looking for info about blood organization in head injuries or lack thereof.

She did not say that Rashomon. In fact she said there was NO swelling of the brain as was indicated by the autopsy report and just the opposite of what you are attributing to her. That was one of the main reasons she believed the head injury and strangulation occurred within a close timeframe. There was actually a discussion of this and I also did research and pointed out that the word edema was not used which indicates swelling.

[shill]

For remember all I had asked her was to provide a link to back up her claim that JB died immediately after the head injury.
You're an idiot who can't even admit when your wrong!

[Louisadelmar]

Aussie: And how many official autopsy reports has this poster ever written in her life? None. So we only have one internet poster's opinion on what Meyer 'should have' included in his autopsy report. This poster (ER doc) said that she is no ME, therefore she has never written an official autopsy report herself.

BTW, I have found some interesting medical info on
subdural hemorrhage which imo casts some doubt on what Elvislives wrote:

http://www.realsundancekid.com/


Quote:
The morbidity and mortality of subdural blood is due to various mechanisms. For example, large space-occupying subdural hematomas exert massive pressure effects on the brain, and are often associated with brain swelling. In cases of individuals with limited post-injury survival, a film or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen grossly in a severe head injury. In these circumstances, the subdural blood is important in that it is a manifestation of diffuse traumatic brain injury.

If I remember correctly, Elvislives wrote that subdural hematomas are always associated with brain swelling. But here it says "often", not "always".
Elvislives also wrote that in severe head injuries, there is always massive hemorrhaging in the brain, whereas here it says that often only a film of or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen in a severe head injury.

I'm still looking for info about blood organization in head injuries or lack thereof.

But as part of her medical training I suspect she has more experience with autopsies than anyone else here does.

The article appears to confirm that JonBenet dies too soon (limited post-injury survival) for anything except the thin layer of subdural blood to appear.

http://www.realsundancekid.com/
[...]
For example, large space-occupying subdural hematomas exert massive pressure effects on the brain, and are often associated with brain swelling. In cases of individuals with limited post-injury survival, a film or thin layer of subdural blood may be all that is seen grossly in a severe head injury. In these circumstances, the subdural blood is important in that it is a manifestation of diffuse traumatic brain injury.
[...]

Massive cerebral swelling often accompanies SDHs acutely if the victim survives long enough.

[rashomon]

I'm responding to Rash's post here because I went back a couple and could not find the original:

What Rash did was took Elvis' posts to another forum in an attempt to discredit her instead of arguing the points on this forum where they were posted. It was totally rude since Elvis could not defend herself on the other forum since she doesn't post there. Elvis took more time answering Rash's questions than any others on this forum and Rash could have done research then when Elvis could have responded. NOW she chooses to do it when Elvis is gone. Rash has lost all credibility as far as I am concerned as the research should have been done then and after the fact has no merit. Had Elvis agreed with Rash's line of thnking this would not have been done and therein lies the issue. Elvis was not even IDI that is what makes it more ironic. She spoke the truth and was totally unbiased and this forum lost a valuable resource not to mention Rash considers Delmar England and the Secretary that wrote the Bonita Papers credible. JMHO
Athena,
this was what I had written verbatim on the other forum, and please tell me where I tried to discredit EL here:

A poster on another forum who is a (very credible sounding) MD (ER doctor) wrote that the lack of organization of the blood in JB's brain points to the strangulation immediately having followed the head bash.
For if more time had passed after the head blow, the blood in JB's brain would have 'organized' itself [= coagulated (hemostasis)], since this is the body's defense against bleeding to death.

This poster also pointed out that JB's brain weighed 1450 grams (normal for a 45 lb child). A fully swollen brain would be much heavier. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri would also poin to the swelling process having stopped very soon afterward. The swelling process starts immediately after infliction of the wound and should be fully developed after 5 minutes. But this was not the case with JB's brain - there was only mild swelling.
I'm no medical expert and merely referring what this poster wrote. For if there is any substance to this, then it could blow apart the whole "head bash in anger followed by later staging".

Her argumentation: if about half an hour had passed betwen the head blow and the strangulation, then

1) JB's blood would have coagulated and
2) the brain would have fully swollen

I can't imagine a parent attacking JB in a rage, and then go from 'attack mode' (head bash) into 'staging mode' (garrote) immediately afterward.

Every theory as to how JB died has to be consistent with the forensic evidence found at the crime scene.
Are there any posters with medical knowledge here who could answer this question:

- do there exist conditions under which blood in a head injury does not show signs of organization? (aside from death soon after the injury or the person having blood clotting disorder). To me, this is the most crucial question here.
I asked around on other forums hoping to find posters with medical knowledge who could provide more info on that. I always told EL this, which is also why I gave her a link to the discussion on C&J. Posters there pointed out that I have no way of knowing if Elvis is in fact a doctor, and of course anyone can claim to be anyting on the internet, I'm aware of that. But I never doubted EL is a doctor (see my post on C&J). I also asked her if she could give a link to sites where medical laypeople can understand the blood organization issue. She did not reply.
I asked her why Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures) said there were blood clots in JB's brain. Her answer: "I don't know."
But if there were blod clots, then some of the blood in JB's brain did have time to organize itself. Maybe there were areas in her brain where the blood could organize itself and other areas where this was no longer possible because she died soon afterward? For example, blood vessels could have ruptured when JB was being carried down to the wine cellar. There are many variables.

The whole autopsy file is probably much larger that the nine pages we can read on the internet - another thing to consider. The coroner's notes for example have never been made public.

[rashomon]

You're an idiot who can't even admit when your wrong!
You seem to need a reminder that insults violate the TOS of this forum.

It is not about being right or wrong, but about contradictions between what one reputable expert (Dr. Spitz) said as opposed to what EL said. Can you put it together?

[rashomon]

She did not say that Rashomon. In fact she said there was NO swelling of the brain as was indicated by the autopsy report and just the opposite of what you are attributing to her. That was one of the main reasons she believed the head injury and strangulation occurred within a close timeframe. There was actually a discussion of this and I also did research and pointed out that the word edema was not used which indicates swelling.
EL said there was mild swelling in JB's brain.
She wrote written that had JB been alive long enough after the head injury, there should have been more swelling her brain, and inferred from the mild amount of swelling that JB can't have survived for very long after the head blow.
She also wrote that "narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri" means brain swelling. Maybe they use these technical terms in autopsy reports on brain injuries instead of 'edema'.

But what caught my eye in the article was that it said subdural hematomas are 'often' associated with brain swelling. 'Often' is not 'always'.

[andU]

Athena,
this was what I had written verbatim on the other forum, and please tell me where I tried to discredit EL here:


I asked around on other forums hoping to find posters with medical knowledge who could provide more info on that. I always told EL this, which is also why I gave her a link to the discussion on C&J. Posters there pointed out that I have no way of knowing if Elvis is in fact a doctor, and of course anyone can claim to be anyting on the internet, I'm aware of that. But I never doubted EL is a doctor (see my post on C&J). I also asked her if she could give a link to sites where medical laypeople can understand the blood organization issue. She did not reply.
I asked her why Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures) said there were blood clots in JB's brain. Her answer: "I don't know."
But if there were blod clots, then some of the blood in JB's brain did have time to organize itself. Maybe there were areas in her brain where the blood could organize itself and other areas where this was no longer possible because she died soon afterward? For example, blood vessels could have ruptured when JB was being carried down to the wine cellar. There are many variables.

The whole autopsy file is probably much larger that the nine pages we can read on the internet - another thing to consider. The coroner's notes for example have never been made public.

Try MedLine

[Athena]

Rather than try to attempt what Elvislives posted, I copied what she said and here is a link to a couple of medical sites for laymen:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

http://www.emedicine.com/

http://pathweb.uchc.edu/

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/

=============================================
Originally Posted by elvislives
I have seen well over 40,000 head injuries. I see them all day, every day..from very minor to massive and lethal. I KNOW how head injuries respond and am 100% confident that JBs head injury was sustained shortly before, at the time of, or just after she died of ligature strangulation

I do have a question for the skeptics out there. How much blood do you think JB lost from that head wound?

And how much blood do you think a 45 lb kid would lose from a massive head wound over a 20-60 minute period? Keep in mind that a 45lb child would need to lose approximately 4 cups of blood in order to go into multiple organ failure (IOW start to die from blood loss). And it would take her about 10-50 minutes to die ( I go a little less than the standard 20-60 because of the severe nature of her wound and the fact that she had a hole in her skull).

So where did all this blood go?
================================================== =====
Originally Posted by elvislives
If I had the benefit of visual aids, or a chalk board, I could probably explain this very easily. But the best I can do here without getting into a whole anatomy and physiology discussion about the skull is probably an analogy/visual to make the point.

So picture (if you will) a bowling ball covered by an orange peel and in between the bowling ball and the orange peel is some cushiony foamy soft material.

Now picture the same external orange peel with the same cushion material, but instead of a bowling ball, this one contains an egg.

If you were to take a blunt object (sharp objects will perforate the scalp causing external bleeding) and bash the bowling ball, you would probably break the orange peel because the bowling ball is very hard (like an adult's skull).

If you used that same amount of force and struck the egg...what would happen? In many cases, the egg would crack and the orange peel would remain intact because the egg absorbs the force of the blow.

Does this make sense to anyone??

================================================== =
Originally Posted by elvislives
Rash, I agree with you completely on this point. I have seen several discussions of world renowned forensic pathologists (henry lee, cyril wecht, etc) and I think it was Cyril Wecht who believes this theory (I could be wrong on this). But if memory serves, he is the one who thinks JB was strangled to death, then bashed in the head after death. He had an explanation for the post mortem hemorrhage-- possible, but a huge stretch imo.

There is some leeway on the exact timing of the events, but most likely she was bashed on the head, then strangled immediately (within seconds or possibly up to 3 minutes). Or she could have been strangled...and during the strangulation was bashed on the head (asphixia in a 45 lb child would take about 4-5 minutes, the bash on the head would take just a second).

It has been argued that the strangulation confounds the evolution of the head wound somewhat (theoretically the constriction of the carotid arteries could have prevented some hemorrhage into the brain, and because the cord was so deeply embedded it could have restricted flow thru the carotids (which is a fairly superficial artery). But if you study cerebral circulation, you will note that there are a lot of redundancies in the vasculature. I.e. if the carotids are occluded, the vertebral arteries will compensate. The vertebrals are very "deep' within the neck, so the ligature would not occlude blood flow thru the vertebrals.) That said however, the internal carotid artery runs thru the subarachnoid space, so if flow of the internal carotid was constricted, that could explain why the subarachnoid hemorhhage was so minor. But it doesn't explain why there is so little bleeding in other areas.
================================================== ========
Originally Posted by elvislives
Anyway, I agree with you that the head trauma was inflicted while her heart was still beating, but her heart only beat for a few minutes after she was bashed....which is why the PDI accidentally theory is not physiologically possible. IF Patsy did it, it HAD to be a Susan Smith type of thing where at the time her intent was to kill.

Actually my theory is based on a number of factors:

lack of wound organization
lack of significant hemorrhage
Absence of hematoma
lack of significant intracranial swelling

I have heard the argument that the bash came after death. I do not believe that since imo that theory doesn't fit the physical evidence. But I also do not believe that this head wound was bleeding for 20-60 minutes before she died. I think it's more like 8 minutes or less.
================================================== ==

[Athena]

Originally Posted by elvislives
I don't have much time right now, but let me plaster up a copy of the autopsy on the next post and explain (briefly).

Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. At the superior extension of the is area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull. In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length. On removal of the skull cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere. The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified. There is a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire
right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebellum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These extend approximately 5mm into the cerebral cortex. Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional
fractures.
Brain: Sections from the areas of contusion disclose disrupted blood vessels of the cortex with surrounding hemorrhage. There is no evidence of the inflammatory infiltrate or organization of the hemorrhage. Subarachnoid hemorrhage is also identified. Cortical neurons are surrounded by clear halos, as are glial cells

The ME mentions a couple times that there is no evidence of organization or inflammation (very significant). The brain weighs 1450 grams--normal for a 45 lb child (a "swollen" brain would be much heavier)

Also there is only mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri (should be acute after about 5 minutes and wouldn't be affected at all if the head wound was inflicted after death)

Sorry I'm out of time, but will come back later and discuss further..

[rashomon]

Thanks AndU and Athena for the links to the medical websites for laypeople.

[rashomon]

I don't know which part of the discussion you are referring to rashomon. I WAS talking about the fibers found on the body, and NOT the fibers found at the crime scene in general, as you seem to have concluded.
Aussie, the issue was about a post from Shill who had written:
And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?
But it is the coroner's job to put anything found on the body into evidence. This was done in the JBR case too. My sosurce for this was the Bonita papers - thanks for pointing out that Dr. meyer also listed it it at the end of the autopsy report, which confirms what the Bonita papers said about the proceeedings.

[rashomon]

"Massive cerebral swelling often accompanies SDHs acutely if the victim survives long enough"
I think the keyword here is 'often'. So theoretically, even if the victim survives long enough, there may not always be cerebral swelling?

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, you must be mixing up something here, for my theory has never been a rage attack followed by an immediate garrote strangulation staging (???) Would you elaborate please.OK rashomon, so your theory is not a rage attack followed by an immediate garrote strangulation staging. Can you remind me what your theory is please? I've got the part about the head bash being followed by a strangulation right, haven't I?

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, you can rant against ST all you want, but remember that e.g. no member of he CBI lab has ever come forward and claimed that ST published fiber evidence info against the Ramseys which didn't exist. Not even their attack dog lawyer Lin Wood stated that the fiber evidence did not exist.rashomon, surely you are not saying that because neither the CBI lab nor Lin Wood went to the trouble of disputing anything Steve Thomas said about fibre evidence that therefore what he said is true are you? Like why would they bother? Someone appeared for the Ramseys when they sued Steve Thomas for what he had written about them, I can't remember if it was Lin Wood but I remember who had to pay the unspecified damages.

[Sprocket]

If the fiber evidence was "made up" believe you me, Woody would have been shouting about it from the roof tops, and on any talk show that would pay...I mean listen to him rant.

[bullmoose]

Aussie, you can rant against ST all you want, but remember that e.g. no member of he CBI lab has ever come forward and claimed that ST published fiber evidence info against the Ramseys which didn't exist. Not even their attack dog lawyer Lin Wood stated that the fiber evidence did not exist.What point is it that you are trying to make, rashoman? Is there a single, just one single example of a mamber of the CBI lab ever having come foward on any case ever, ever to verify or deny somebodies' claim on fiber evidence in an ongoing case? NO, I bet you can't come up with one. So, what is your point, or is there even a point to your post? Yes, I know that you have this lovely Imaginary Flying Carpet of nonexistant evidence that you love to trot out, but only your fellow believers can see it as more than a figment of your imagination. To the rest of of us, it is a threadbare attempt at a smear. OH, wow, now I get it, are you saying that Tober's wiped down flashlight was actually wiped by your Imaginary Flying Carpet? Not even Lin Wood stated that it did not happen, right, so it must be true, right?JMHO:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, if you have followed the case discussion here and my exchanges with Elivislives on this forum about the forensic evidence concerning medical issues (in which you, to my knowledge, never participated), it must be clear to you that I continue to bring up her name here, since her sudden departure from this forum has left a lot of these questions unanswered.
I would have have many questions to ask of her, and refuse to take the blame for having played a "large part in causing her unfortunate departure from this forum".

For remember all I had asked her was to provide a link to back up her claim that JB died immediately after the head injury.It might interest you to know that I did follow your discussions with elivslives on this forum. I did not participate because I had already been through the same circular discussion with you at Websleuths last year when I presented essentially the same arguments to you as elvis was later to present to you here. Having had my arguments fall on deaf ears I thought when elvis started saying the same things you might take them on board, coming as they did from a medically qualified person. But no, you chose to denigrate her and question her credentials, thank you very much and go on referring to your delmars and werners and steves and bonitas as authoritative references. What an insult to elvis. And why do you want to keep asking her more questions, if you don't have any faith in her anyway?

So you refuse to take any blame for elvis' depature? Well then, I will go further, I will say I think you were the main reason for her departure. I saw you turn on her after she had spent hours going into infinite detail with extreme patience to try to get the message through to you. She really put her heart in it for you and IMO it was you who hurt her most, not whiskey who started it all, everyone knows he's an a-hole anyway and the other one who I don't remember, they didn't count IMO, you were the one with whom she had the most discussions. Think on it. And think on this too - there are a lot of people here who IMO are not happy about elvis having left.

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, the issue was about a post from Shill who had written:

But it is the coroner's job to put anything found on the body into evidence. This was done in the JBR case too. My sosurce for this was the Bonita papers - thanks for pointing out that Dr. meyer also listed it it at the end of the autopsy report, which confirms what the Bonita papers said about the proceeedings.

Then you should have addressed you reply to shill.


And you are wrong when you say this issue was about a post from shill. It is about a post from you, post #24 to be precise, in which you wrote:

“There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB.”


Which I responded to by saying in my post 105

"So who do you think collected the fibres in the first place? And then sent them off to the lab for microscopic analysis? Of course Meyer is not going to write in detail on the fibres. He leaves that to the fibre experts who analyse them using technical equipment which is not set up in the autopsy room."


And then I got the following rude, incorrect and nonsensical reply from you as part of your post 106:

“You obviously have not followed the discussion, therefore I'll repeat it: the issue was not about fibers found at the crime scene in general, but about fibers found on the body, and of course a coroner has to note their existence, and they are bagged and put into evidence.
According to the Bonita papers, this was in fact done, but Dr. Meyer's 9 page report doesn't mention it. From this one can infer that the actual autopsy file was much larger than the thin nine-page report which we have access to.


To which I replied in post 124:

"I don't know which part of the discussion you are referring to rashomon. I WAS talking about the fibers found on the body, and NOT the fibers found at the crime scene in general, as you seem to have concluded. So I would say you obviously have not followed my line of reasoning, therefore I'll repeat it:

From Meyer’s autopsy report:

EVIDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and Hair from clothing and body surfaces; usw…

So Meyer does mention in the autopsy report that he noted their existence, and bagged them and put into evidence. What are you talking about?"

[shill]

You seem to need a reminder that insults violate the TOS of this forum.

It is not about being right or wrong, but about contradictions between what one reputable expert (Dr. Spitz) said as opposed to what EL said. Can you put it together?

If you'd just shut up and listen for once to someone other then yourself, you just might learn something.

And bite me!

[shill]

If the fiber evidence was "made up" believe you me, Woody would have been shouting about it from the roof tops, and on any talk show that would pay...I mean listen to him rant.

Why would "Woody" want to perpetuate this lie by dragging it out to the gossip hungry public who have already formed a lynch mob?

It was already leaked to the tabloids that published that John molested his daughter.
So why wasn't John arrested on sexual molestation charges if they can prove that?

[Sharon]

Aussie, if you have followed the case discussion here and my exchanges with Elivislives on this forum about the forensic evidence concerning medical issues (in which you, to my knowledge, never participated), it must be clear to you that I continue to bring up her name here, since her sudden departure from this forum has left a lot of these questions unanswered.
I would have have many questions to ask of her, and refuse to take the blame for having played a "large part in causing her unfortunate departure from this forum".

For remember all I had asked her was to provide a link to back up her claim that JB died immediately after the head injury.

You certainly are to blame whether you refuse to take it or not!!!

She was a huge asset here, something that most people could comprehend from a mile away. You did what is called looking a gift horse in the mouth!!!

Im sure you didnt do it on purpose, and think she would leave over your antics. But most people wouldnt have taken the chance to upset someone who was just a windfall to a board like this. I hope you make better decisions irl because our success often hinges on determining who is an asset in our lives & who isnt.
jmo

[Sharon]

Why would "Woody" want to perpetuate this lie by dragging it out to the gossip hungry public who have already formed a lynch mob?

It was already leaked to the tabloids that published that John molested his daughter.
So why wasn't John arrested on sexual molestation charges if they can prove that?

Yes, Shill you are right. Its always a delemour for those in public relations to decide how to best impliment damage control. ie its usually a choice between silence or rebutal. With silence it is hoped that the issue will die down. Sometimes even with the best rebuttal it serves only to refresh the publics mind of what is being rebutted. jmo

[Sharon]

It might interest you to know that I did follow your discussions with elivslives on this forum. I did not participate because I had already been through the same circular discussion with you at Websleuths last year when I presented essentially the same arguments to you as elvis was later to present to you here. Having had my arguments fall on deaf ears I thought when elvis started saying the same things you might take them on board, coming as they did from a medically qualified person. But no, you chose to denigrate her and question her credentials, thank you very much and go on referring to your delmars and werners and steves and bonitas as authoritative references. What an insult to elvis. And why do you want to keep asking her more questions, if you don't have any faith in her anyway?

So you refuse to take any blame for elvis' depature? Well then, I will go further, I will say I think you were the main reason for her departure. I saw you turn on her after she had spent hours going into infinite detail with extreme patience to try to get the message through to you. She really put her heart in it for you and IMO it was you who hurt her most, not whiskey who started it all, everyone knows he's an a-hole anyway and the other one who I don't remember, they didn't count IMO, you were the one with whom she had the most discussions. Think on it. And think on this too - there are a lot of people here who IMO are not happy about elvis having left.

Well said.
Elvis left because her time actually was too valuable to waste on extreemly ignorant people (who actually remind us that those crazy guests on the Springer show are probably spending their time here on the net as well).
jmo

[sharlock]

So you refuse to take any blame for elvis' depature? Well then, I will go further, I will say I think you were the main reason for her departure. I saw you turn on her after she had spent hours going into infinite detail with extreme patience to try to get the message through to you.


Whoaa there Nelly! Since when has a poster been not allowed to question someone elses differing oppinion? EL is a very informed intelligent person but I'd also have to say the same for Rashomon. Thier debate was extremely enlightening and I've got to say just because someone holds a strong position either way gives them no extra kudos. None of us can prove our arguments here and I hesitate to say the most we could hope for with what we've got is to get us all to he point where we feel somewhat satisfied with the views we've taken in the end; and there are more than myself here I imagine who are still trying to sort through the muck.



But no, you chose to denigrate her and question her credentials, thank you very much and go on referring to your delmars and werners and steves and bonitas as authoritative references. What an insult to elvis. And why do you want to keep asking her more questions, if you don't have any faith in her anyway?

It is important for people to debate and not take everything they are told at face value. Come on guys, be fair!
Sharlock :punch:

[nuisanceposter]

Good points, sharlock. Thanks for presenting an opposing viewpoint. I found the information being exchanged between EL and Rashomon to be extremely interesting, and I appreciated hearing the comments, questions, and answers from both of them. You can expect to see exchanges like that in a setting like this, where people have these opposing viewpoints and debate them thoroughly. They discussed it well, using sources to back up their stances, and they did it politely. The desire to assign blame is really interesting.

[andU]

I agree totally with this. When I pointed out to EL that an ME in PMPT stated that JB could of ate the pineapple the day before, they replied that the ME was wrong. Period. No links, nothing. When I ask for backup they said I should go to the library or google it. As Roshomon correctly points out, that is a violation of the TOS on this board. If EL was really a doctor they would no that it may be possible for someone to take longer than usual to digest somethihng. But this poster wouldnt even allow for teh possiblilty that they might be wrong. Its like, I'm a doctor so everything I say is indisuputable. And I dont get the IDIs here. If EL was IDI they would at least consider it a possilility that JB ate the pineapple before she got home.

And EL often pointed out that she thought Patsy killed JB ON PURPOSE. That right there shows bias. If you go back and read the posts EL says this many times which is ridiculous. What mother would plan to kill her own child on purpose? I think that discredits her right there.

Well, Whiskey... she has left the forum. You should be proud of yourself both you and Rash... You have a right to your opinion and some of us have a right to ignore or disagree with you.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by rashomon
You seem to need a reminder that insults violate the TOS of this forum.

It is not about being right or wrong, but about contradictions between what one reputable expert (Dr. Spitz) said as opposed to what EL said. Can you put it together?
If you'd just shut up and listen for once to someone other then yourself, you just might learn something.

And bite me!
I was listening, Shill: for your answer to my question re the forensic evidence. but your reply makes it pretty clear that you have none.

[Athena]

Good points, sharlock. Thanks for presenting an opposing viewpoint. I found the information being exchanged between EL and Rashomon to be extremely interesting, and I appreciated hearing the comments, questions, and answers from both of them. You can expect to see exchanges like that in a setting like this, where people have these opposing viewpoints and debate them thoroughly. They discussed it well, using sources to back up their stances, and they did it politely. The desire to assign blame is really interesting.


I too thought the exchange was interesting however that is not the issue being discussed. Rash asked questions and IMO when she did not agree with the answer opted to take the argument to another board where El was not a member and asked for links and then "credentials" were questioned instead of trying to disprove it herself. She knew what she was doing and was determined to set out and discredit EL, IMO. While it is true anyone can post on a board and claim they are someone they are not, the information that was posted could have been researched. Had El opted to agree with what Rash said or "Rash's choice of experts" this discussion would not even have been an issue. How do you provide a link if the source is your own knowledge, training and background. Speaking for myself I do my own research and El's posts either validated what I researched or made me look further.

If I discuss the field I am in I could not provide a link if the knowledge comes from my background and training same as if I asked Rash about being a teacher and she gives me answer based on her education and training -- but wouldn't have a link.

[rashomon]

What point is it that you are trying to make, rashoman? Is there a single, just one single example of a mamber of the CBI lab ever having come foward on any case ever, ever to verify or deny somebodies' claim on fiber evidence in an ongoing case? NO, I bet you can't come up with one. So, what is your point, or is there even a point to your post? Yes, I know that you have this lovely Imaginary Flying Carpet of nonexistant evidence that you love to trot out, but only your fellow believers can see it as more than a figment of your imagination. To the rest of of us, it is a threadbare attempt at a smear.

Bullmoose: what is threadbare is your IDI attempt to discredit the fiber evidence against the Ramseys. Somewhat strange, since not even Team Ramsey disputed its existence. Do you really believe ST would have gotten away with publicly misquoting the CBI lab report in his book which has so thoroughly been scrutinized by the Ramseys' lawyers? The Ramseys sued ST because of his theory that Patsy was JB's killer, not because of the fiber evidence he quoted.

A poster here has complained that I 'go on and on about the fiber evidence', as if those fibers were something totally insignificant. But the opposite is the case: fiber evidence is extremely important. Just think about the many criminal cases where incriminating fibers led to a conviction. The poster should direct his complaints at you, Bullmoose, since you continue to allege that those fibers don't exist, like a child in the magical thinking phase, and my posts are a reply to your fiber fantasies.
To sum up the fiber fabrications frequently brought up by IDIs here once again:

Ramsey advocates know how much the fiber evidence implicates both Ramseys, which is why they fight tooth and nail to minimize its significance.

Arguments frequently brought up by IDIs on forums:

1) "Consistent with" does not mean it was a match.

Wrong.
We know from the Jeffrey MacDonald case discussion that when lab techs have actually found what we laypeople would call 'a match', they always say the fibers are 'consistent with'. So if lab tests found the fibers from Patsy's jacket to be 'consistent with' those found in the paint tray, in the garrote and on the duct tape, this is actually very damning evidence.

2) "Fibers from the people living in a household can be found everywhere there, so it is logical that some of them would be found on JB."

They conveniently leave out the fact that the incriminating fibers were all found in locations closely associated with JB's death.
Who would paint with her Christmas party jacket on? Even Patsy denied this when asked. And yet her jacket fibers were found in the paint tray which contained the broken paintbrush.
How did Patsy's fibers get inside the wrappings of the garrote handle? How did they get on the duct tape covering JB's mouth when Patsy claimed she had never been down in the basement on that night? For when JB was carried upstairs, the tape had been left behind on the wine cellar floor.

Conclusion: someone wearing that jacket handled the duct tape, the garrote and the paintbrush. And since it is unlikely that an intruder put on Patsy's jacket, this leaves no one else than Patsy as the main stager of the scene.

3) "When Levin confronted John Ramsey with the incriminating fiber evidence against him, this was nothing but a cheap trick employed to steer John Ramsey into a self-incriminating reply."

It is true that the police are allowed to lie to the suspect under certain circumstances, but Levin is a lawywer, and unlike the police, lawyers are not allowed to lie in such interviews.

Lin Wood clearly did not want John Ramsey to answer the question, for fear he might say something self-incriminating. Which is why he tried to flood Levin with a tirade about the (un)reliability of fiber evidence. If he had been of the opinion that this was merely a cheap unsubstantiated trick employed by Levin to con John Ramsey, you bet a hard-boiled lawyer like Wood would have told Levin this bluntly.

Wood did not tell Levin that he thought the fibers did not exist.
Which is why he wanted to study the lab report himself. But Levin was under no obligation to show Wood the evidence.
Levin also told Wood that he was going to ask Patsy about these fibers too, so maybe she could explain how they got there.
Imo nothing in Lin Wood's reaction conveys that he thought Levin didn't have anything possibly incriminating against his client John.

Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled out anything of thin air in this interview? The defense would have had a field day with those non-existing fibers and Levin would have gotten a malfeasance suit.

Do the Ramsey advocates seriously believe that highly respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq., and Mitch Morrissey Esq. who when conducting the interview with John, were acting on behalf of the United States and were bound by a code of ethics, were all liars trying to frame John Ramsey?

It has been argued that, since Levin did not pursue the fiber matter further in this interview, this was the proof that Wood 'defeated' him.
I don't think Levin's moving on in the interview means that Wood 'defeated' him in any way. These interviews delve into many aspects of the case, their purpose is not to treat each matter exhaustively, but to get reactions from the suspect, to compare what he says with his prior statements, and to keep him talking as much as possible. For there is always the danger that the suspect will suddenly clam up and refuse to continue if he feels things get too critical.

[Sprocket]

These are some of the best arguments you've presented on these issues Rashomon.

I've not seen one argument yet, that even comes close to negating them. A lot of side stepping and name calling, but not one argument to refute yours based on factual evidence.

[rashomon]

I too thought the exchange was interesting however that is not the issue being discussed. Rash asked questions and IMO when she did not agree with the answer opted to take the argument to another board where El was not a member and asked for links and then "credentials" were questioned instead of trying to disprove it herself. She knew what she was doing and was determined to set out and discredit EL, IMO. While it is true anyone can post on a board and claim they are someone they are not, the information that was posted could have been researched. Had El opted to agree with what Rash said or "Rash's choice of experts" this discussion would not even have been an issue. How do you provide a link if the source is your own knowledge, training and background. If I discuss the field I am in I could not provide a link if the knowledge comes from my background and training same as if I asked Rash about being a teacher and she gives me answer based on her education and training -- but wouldn't have a link.
You are wrong on that, Athena. If EL had opted to agree with what I said and a famous medical expert disagreed on it, I would look for further info too. For any theory in a circumstantial evidence case has to be backed up by the forensic evidence, no matter which side you are on.

For isn't getting a 'second medical opinion' advisable both in real life and on forums? Several years ago, I nearly died because an ER doc had misdiagnosed my condition when I was taken to the hospital with abdominal pain, and only a last-minute operation saved me from internally bleeding to death.

Can we take at face value just what one doctor (I have no doubt that EL is in fact a doctor), stated on this forum, although it contradicts what Dr. Spitz said? Not that I think EL is wrong, but unless this is cleared up, it keeps bugging me, after all Dr. Spitz is a prominent ME, who (unlike EL) has had access to far more forensic material.
If I discuss the field I am in I could not provide a link if the knowledge comes from my background and training same as if I asked Rash about being a teacher and she gives me answer based on her education and training -- but wouldn't have a link.
Not to be misunderstood: no one here would expect EL to tell us what her name is and what hospital she works in. No one should ever post such personal info publicly on the net, for this would be downright dangerous.
In that sense, I cannot 'prove' to you that I'm a teacher, but I'll be happy to answer any pedagogic question you ask me. But one thing I always add is "in my experience". For example, no six-year-old has ever asked me for help in wiping after a bowel movement, since children at that age already have a sense of intimate privacy. Now when I read that JB asked whoever was around to help her with that, this would raise a red flag for me, from my personal experience as a teacher.
But pedagogic is totally different from medicine, a science based of facts which are much more technical. Therefore if EL had provided links to this specific topic (blood organization), this would have been very helpful. Speaking for myself I do my own research and El's posts either validated what I researched or made me look further.
I'd be very interested in the result of your research, Athena. For I'm not goood at doing this kind of internet research. I went through the links to the mecidal sites you gave me, the sites are great, but still I couldnl't find anythig specific on blood organization. If you have found anything, could you give a link?

[andU]

Bullmoose: what is threadbare is your IDI attempt to discredit the fiber evidence against the Ramseys. Somewhat strange, since not even Team Ramsey disputed its existence. Do you really believe ST would have gotten away with publicly misquoting the CBI lab report in his book which has so thoroughly been scrutinized by the Ramseys' lawyers? The Ramseys sued ST because of his theory that Patsy was JB's killer, not because of the fiber evidence he quoted.

A poster here has complained that I 'go on and on about the fiber evidence', as if those fibers were something totally insignificant. But the opposite is the case: fiber evidence is extremely important. Just think about the many criminal cases where incriminating fibers led to a conviction. The poster should direct his complaints at you, Bullmoose, since you continue to allege that those fibers don't exist, like a child in the magical thinking phase, and my posts are a reply to your fiber fantasies.
To sum up the fiber fabrications frequently brought up by IDIs here once again:

Ramsey advocates know how much the fiber evidence implicates both Ramseys, which is why they fight tooth and nail to minimize its significance.

Arguments frequently brought up by IDIs on forums:

1) "Consistent with" does not mean it was a match.

Wrong.
We know from the Jeffrey MacDonald case discussion that when lab techs have actually found what we laypeople would call 'a match', they always say the fibers are 'consistent with'. So if lab tests found the fibers from Patsy's jacket to be 'consistent with' those found in the paint tray, in the garrote and on the duct tape, this is actually very damning evidence.

2) "Fibers from the people living in a household can be found everywhere there, so it is logical that some of them would be found on JB."

They conveniently leave out the fact that the incriminating fibers were all found in locations closely associated with JB's death.
Who would paint with her Christmas party jacket on? Even Patsy denied this when asked. And yet her jacket fibers were found in the paint tray which contained the broken paintbrush.
How did Patsy's fibers get inside the wrappings of the garrote handle? How did they get on the duct tape covering JB's mouth when Patsy claimed she had never been down in the basement on that night? For when JB was carried upstairs, the tape had been left behind on the wine cellar floor.

Conclusion: someone wearing that jacket handled the duct tape, the garrote and the paintbrush. And since it is unlikely that an intruder put on Patsy's jacket, this leaves no one else than Patsy as the main stager of the scene.

3) "When Levin confronted John Ramsey with the incriminating fiber evidence against him, this was nothing but a cheap trick employed to steer John Ramsey into a self-incriminating reply."

It is true that the police are allowed to lie to the suspect under certain circumstances, but Levin is a lawywer, and unlike the police, lawyers are not allowed to lie in such interviews.

Lin Wood clearly did not want John Ramsey to answer the question, for fear he might say something self-incriminating. Which is why he tried to flood Levin with a tirade about the (un)reliability of fiber evidence. If he had been of the opinion that this was merely a cheap unsubstantiated trick employed by Levin to con John Ramsey, you bet a hard-boiled lawyer like Wood would have told Levin this bluntly.

Wood did not tell Levin that he thought the fibers did not exist.
Which is why he wanted to study the lab report himself. But Levin was under no obligation to show Wood the evidence.
Levin also told Wood that he was going to ask Patsy about these fibers too, so maybe she could explain how they got there.
Imo nothing in Lin Wood's reaction conveys that he thought Levin didn't have anything possibly incriminating against his client John.

Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled out anything of thin air in this interview? The defense would have had a field day with those non-existing fibers and Levin would have gotten a malfeasance suit.

Do the Ramsey advocates seriously believe that highly respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq., and Mitch Morrissey Esq. who when conducting the interview with John, were acting on behalf of the United States and were bound by a code of ethics, were all liars trying to frame John Ramsey?

It has been argued that, since Levin did not pursue the fiber matter further in this interview, this was the proof that Wood 'defeated' him.
I don't think Levin's moving on in the interview means that Wood 'defeated' him in any way. These interviews delve into many aspects of the case, their purpose is not to treat each matter exhaustively, but to get reactions from the suspect, to compare what he says with his prior statements, and to keep him talking as much as possible. For there is always the danger that the suspect will suddenly clam up and refuse to continue if he feels things get too critical.

Damning circumstancial evidence; not enough to arrest them and take them to trial - obviously. There is also circumstancial evidence of an intruder, already posted on this board. No arrest there either. I think whoever is in charge is doing nothing while we all debate what we know, or what they want us to know.

[rashomon]

Damning circumstancial evidence; not enough to arrest them and take them to trial - obviously. There is also circumstancial evidence of an intruder, already posted on this board. No arrest there either. I think whoever is in charge is doing nothing while we all debate what we know, or what they want us to know.

A grand jury in which the main suspects were not even called to testify is a farce anyway. Forget it.

But Lacy and her minions were very eager to arrest the alleged 'murderer' in August 2006, weren't they? Even before doing any DNA testing.

[Athena]

This country is rampant with prosecutorial misconduct and people here who are citing that prosecutors are not "allowed" to lie really need to do some research. The only time they are not supposed to lie is in a court of law not during an interrogation or an interview. Kane, and Levin were hired as investigators to assist in getting the case to the grand jury and because of their grand jury records.

I certainly hope that noone on this board is ever subjected to prosecutorial misconduct but it happens every single day in this country and as a result there are many innocent people in prison.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/PM/states.aspx?st=CO

http://www1.law.umkc.edu/suni/wrongful_convictions/Prosecutor_Misconduct.htm

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=sidebarsb&aid=37

http://truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

http://tinyurl.com/369s37

[shill]

I was listening, Shill: for your answer to my question re the forensic evidence. but your reply makes it pretty clear that you have none.

Why waste my time, you're opinion is etched in stone.

You've proven the only thing that makes sense to you is what's coming out of your mouth.

[Sharon]

I agree totally with this. When I pointed out to EL that an ME in PMPT stated that JB could of ate the pineapple the day before, they replied that the ME was wrong. Period. No links, nothing. When I ask for backup they said I should go to the library or google it. As Roshomon correctly points out, that is a violation of the TOS on this board. If EL was really a doctor they would no that it may be possible for someone to take longer than usual to digest somethihng. But this poster wouldnt even allow for teh possiblilty that they might be wrong. Its like, I'm a doctor so everything I say is indisuputable. And I dont get the IDIs here. If EL was IDI they would at least consider it a possilility that JB ate the pineapple before she got home.

And EL often pointed out that she thought Patsy killed JB ON PURPOSE. That right there shows bias. If you go back and read the posts EL says this many times which is ridiculous. What mother would plan to kill her own child on purpose? I think that discredits her right there.

I always followed ELs posts with extreem interest. You have it all wrong and she never said P. killed JBR on purpose. I think you are missing the point of everything she said, and I dont blame her for leaving at all.
Infact, you have distorted her words so much that I cant believe Im waisting my time trying to reason with you. Its almost like you are retarted Im sorry to say. jmo

[rashomon]

It might interest you to know that I did follow your discussions with elivslives on this forum. I did not participate because I had already been through the same circular discussion with you at Websleuths last year when I presented essentially the same arguments to you as elvis was later to present to you here. Having had my arguments fall on deaf ears I thought when elvis started saying the same things you might take them on board, coming as they did from a medically qualified person.
Aussie, to the best of my memory, I don't recall having had any exchange about the forensic evidence with you on WS. We did have exchanges about your theory, but this theory imo is so absurd in itself that any question as to whether "it fits the forensic evidence" is of no relevance anyway.

Do you seriously believe that Patsy Ramsey, after arriving home late from a Christmas party and having to rise early in the morning because the family had a scheduled flight to Michigan, invited people for a 'photo session' with JB, but then Patsy fell asleep on the couch, and these people (who were actually pedophiles - you never said how many came to the house), then took JB to the basement, celebrating a sadistic orgy with several of them working on JB silmultaneously: one pulling the cord on her neck, one jabbing the paintbrush into her vagina, and the other one whacking her on the head.
JB either was hanging down from a hook in the ceiling or standing on a chair
(you presented alternative scenarios on that when having difficulty explaining the lack of ligature abrasion marks on JB's wrists).
When Patsy finally woke up from her sleep on the couch and they told her that JB was dead, she agreed to pen the ransom note since she wanted the pedophiles' approval since they they belonged to the Boulder society.
When coming over here, you expanded on your theory by introducing bunny rabbits into your pedophile orgy scenario.

Sorry, Aussie, but your theory is about as convincing as if I would show a carrot to my kindergartners, telling them: "the Easter Bunny must have been here. Everyone knows bunnies love carrots, Easter is not far away - I think he was here and left that carrot behind."
This theory would 'fit the evidence', wouldn't it? :)

[Sharon]

Damning circumstancial evidence; not enough to arrest them and take them to trial - obviously. There is also circumstancial evidence of an intruder, already posted on this board. No arrest there either. I think whoever is in charge is doing nothing while we all debate what we know, or what they want us to know.

Why is this not enough to take them to trial. We have just been informed that other cases were won on the basis of fibre evidence. I cant imagine why the R. got off when there is fibre evidence that makes this so black & white??? I can only guess that the fibre evidence wasnt all that!!!! (Although it sounds riviting on paper)
jmo

[Sharon]

Aussie, to the best of my memory, I don't recall having had any exchange about the forensic evidence with you on WS. We did have exchanges about your theory, but this theory imo is so absurd in itself that any question as to whether "it fits the forensic evidence" is of no relevance anyway.

Do you seriously believe that Patsy Ramsey, after arriving home late from a Christmas party and having to rise early in the morning because the family had a scheduled flight to Michigan, invited people for a 'photo session' with JB, but then Patsy fell asleep on the couch, and these people (who were actually pedophiles - you never said how many came to the house), then took JB to the basement, celebrating a sadistic orgy with several of them working on JB silmultaneously: one pulling the cord on her neck, one jabbing the paintbrush into her vagina, and the other one whacking her on the head.
JB either was hanging down from a hook in the ceiling or standing on a chair
(you presented alternative scenarios on that when having difficulty explaining the lack of ligature abrasion marks on JB's wrists).
When Patsy finally woke up from her sleep on the couch and they told her that JB was dead, she agreed to pen the ransom note since she wanted the pedophiles' approval since they they belonged to the Boulder society.
When coming over here, you expanded on your theory by introducing bunny rabbits into your pedophile orgy scenario.

Sorry, Aussie, but your theory is about as convincing as if I would show a carrot to my kindergartners, telling them: "the Easter Bunny must have been here. Everyone knows bunnies love carrots, Easter is not far away - I think he was here and left that carrot behind."
This theory would 'fit the evidence', wouldn't it? :)

Well, this crime is so weird that it is extreemly easy to make a mockery out of any theory so far, including that the R. did it.

Dont think the idea of two parents deciding to play around with their newly murdered daughter like an eye spy game is any more credible to thinking minds. I can just imagine their brainstorming & efficiency. Were they having fun, ie I`l write the rn...you take care of the vagina.....ok lovie, oh and dont forget to wipe the flashlight & the batteries, we want to give people so many mixed up clues, this is so much fun. What about fibre evidence, I will really confuse people by not saying I ever wore this jacket while painting...oh I cant wait. Get the pineapple out, we`ll invite all our friends over tomorrow, what a blast. jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, this crime is so weird that it is extreemly easy to make a mockery out of any theory so far, including that the R. did it.

Dont think the idea of two parents deciding to play around with their newly murdered daughter like an eye spy game is any more credible to thinking minds. I can just imagine their brainstorming & efficiency. Were they having fun, ie I`l write the rn...you take care of the vagina.....ok lovie, oh and dont forget to wipe the flashlight & the batteries, we want to give people so many mixed up clues, this is so much fun. What about fibre evidence, I will really confuse people by not saying I ever wore this jacket while painting...oh I cant wait. Get the pineapple out, we`ll invite all our friends over tomorrow, what a blast. jmo

Wow, Sharon...and you were offended by what I wrote a while back??
Do you really think any RDI thinks that was what was going on? Geeze.

[bullmoose]

Bullmoose: what is threadbare is your IDI attempt to discredit the fiber evidence against the Ramseys. Somewhat strange, since not even Team Ramsey disputed its existence. Do you really believe ST would have gotten away with publicly misquoting the CBI lab report in his book which has so thoroughly been scrutinized by the Ramseys' lawyers? The Ramseys sued ST because of his theory that Patsy was JB's killer, not because of the fiber evidence he quoted.

A poster here has complained that I 'go on and on about the fiber evidence', as if those fibers were something totally insignificant. But the opposite is the case: fiber evidence is extremely important. Just think about the many criminal cases where incriminating fibers led to a conviction. The poster should direct his complaints at you, Bullmoose, since you continue to allege that those fibers don't exist, like a child in the magical thinking phase, and my posts are a reply to your fiber fantasies.
To sum up the fiber fabrications frequently brought up by IDIs here once again:

Ramsey advocates know how much the fiber evidence implicates both Ramseys, which is why they fight tooth and nail to minimize its significance.

Arguments frequently brought up by IDIs on forums:

1) "Consistent with" does not mean it was a match.

Wrong.
We know from the Jeffrey MacDonald case discussion that when lab techs have actually found what we laypeople would call 'a match', they always say the fibers are 'consistent with'. So if lab tests found the fibers from Patsy's jacket to be 'consistent with' those found in the paint tray, in the garrote and on the duct tape, this is actually very damning evidence.

2) "Fibers from the people living in a household can be found everywhere there, so it is logical that some of them would be found on JB."

They conveniently leave out the fact that the incriminating fibers were all found in locations closely associated with JB's death.
Who would paint with her Christmas party jacket on? Even Patsy denied this when asked. And yet her jacket fibers were found in the paint tray which contained the broken paintbrush.
How did Patsy's fibers get inside the wrappings of the garrote handle? How did they get on the duct tape covering JB's mouth when Patsy claimed she had never been down in the basement on that night? For when JB was carried upstairs, the tape had been left behind on the wine cellar floor.

Conclusion: someone wearing that jacket handled the duct tape, the garrote and the paintbrush. And since it is unlikely that an intruder put on Patsy's jacket, this leaves no one else than Patsy as the main stager of the scene.

3) "When Levin confronted John Ramsey with the incriminating fiber evidence against him, this was nothing but a cheap trick employed to steer John Ramsey into a self-incriminating reply."

It is true that the police are allowed to lie to the suspect under certain circumstances, but Levin is a lawywer, and unlike the police, lawyers are not allowed to lie in such interviews.

Lin Wood clearly did not want John Ramsey to answer the question, for fear he might say something self-incriminating. Which is why he tried to flood Levin with a tirade about the (un)reliability of fiber evidence. If he had been of the opinion that this was merely a cheap unsubstantiated trick employed by Levin to con John Ramsey, you bet a hard-boiled lawyer like Wood would have told Levin this bluntly.

Wood did not tell Levin that he thought the fibers did not exist.
Which is why he wanted to study the lab report himself. But Levin was under no obligation to show Wood the evidence.
Levin also told Wood that he was going to ask Patsy about these fibers too, so maybe she could explain how they got there.
Imo nothing in Lin Wood's reaction conveys that he thought Levin didn't have anything possibly incriminating against his client John.

Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled out anything of thin air in this interview? The defense would have had a field day with those non-existing fibers and Levin would have gotten a malfeasance suit.

Do the Ramsey advocates seriously believe that highly respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq., and Mitch Morrissey Esq. who when conducting the interview with John, were acting on behalf of the United States and were bound by a code of ethics, were all liars trying to frame John Ramsey?

It has been argued that, since Levin did not pursue the fiber matter further in this interview, this was the proof that Wood 'defeated' him.
I don't think Levin's moving on in the interview means that Wood 'defeated' him in any way. These interviews delve into many aspects of the case, their purpose is not to treat each matter exhaustively, but to get reactions from the suspect, to compare what he says with his prior statements, and to keep him talking as much as possible. For there is always the danger that the suspect will suddenly clam up and refuse to continue if he feels things get too critical.I find your argument utterly underwhelming; say whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but the fact remains that the evidence of John's shirt fibers on Jonbenet's genital area; which would constitute utterly damning evidence against the Ramseys if true; is but a figment of your imagination.No trial, no indictment=no fibers, face it rashoman, even if you were the captain of your high school debating club,you cannot argue something that doesn't exist into being. JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

Wow, Sharon...and you were offended by what I wrote a while back??
Do you really think any RDI thinks that was what was going on? Geeze.

I have to agree, it was crude.

[rashomon]

I find your argument utterly underwhelming; say whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but the fact remains that the evidence of John's shirt fibers on Jonbenet's genital area; which would constitute utterly damning evidence against the Ramseys if true; is but a figment of your imagination.No trial, no indictment=no fibers, face it rashoman, even if you were the captain of your high school debating club,you cannot argue something that doesn't exist into being. JMHO:biggrin:
It is obvious that the fiber evidence is a thorn in the IDIs side, hence your reply trying to minimize its significance.
DA Hunter was a non-nconfrontational wimp who used the grand jury to wash his hands of the case. That GJ was never ment to indict, which is why I think the Ramseys were not called called to testify.

[andU]

It is obvious that the fiber evidence is a thorn in the IDIs side, hence your reply trying to minimize its significance.
DA Hunter was a non-nconfrontational wimp who used the grand jury to wash his hands of the case. That GJ was never ment to indict, which is why I think the Ramseys were not called called to testify.

The fiber evidence is not a thorn in my side, it obviously doesn't mean anything or there would be an arrest made. I'm sorry that you've put so much into the fiber, Rash...

[Sharon]

Wow, Sharon...and you were offended by what I wrote a while back??
Do you really think any RDI thinks that was what was going on? Geeze.

Yes, I had that coming and I do appologise to you & others on the board. I t5hink Im spending too many hours here, and I lost good judgement in what I wanted to convey & the best way to do so.

I really wanted to say something like...when you analyse most of the theories, they do all sound a bit rediculous & far fetched. Like to me, hearing that the parents staged details of their daughters death in a meticulous way seems far fetched. Infact, if you were to poll the general public on what parents would do after having killed their child (by accident?) I bet staging a crime scene wouldnt even get on the list. Irl, parents dont do things like that, and I was trying to illustrate how crazy it really sounds!

Mind you, sometimes its very hard to really believe this crime happened at all in the way it did. I know some of the IDI theories sound incredulous, especially when said in a very sarcastic (as if) way. But, stranger things have happened.

Today, I was thinking about lhow all murders seem to have really silly trivial reasons & motives when we do get to find out direct from the perp. From what Ive read here on this site its really beyond belief as to why some of these perps do the sick cruel things that they do. eg the canibal eats his victims because he is lonely, or the monster butchers a little girl because his neice called him a name, and the girl is her friend. etc. Sometimes the circumstances are so bizaare that you could never believe it possible like the guy who they based Silence Of the Lambs on. If we say these stories out loud they sound ludicrous......but they are real.

What Im getting at is sometimes theres no real reason for a murder that makes sense to us because we are not sick. Aussie may have a way out theory, but much of what she has offered as her idea of what happened does go on irl ie peds and groups working together etc. Pedophilia goes right up into the highest echilions of society....which in itself is unbelievable.

We just dont know what happened, we have almost no intruder evidence taken to work with, we have almost no RDI evidence to work with. Its a very difficult case to crack.

And I really am sorry if I offended anyone, I guess I was sort of protecting Aussie because she puts so much effort into her posts here, and I didnt like the mockery towards her. But I guess she can look after herself!!
Still friends????
jmo

[ralia]

Great analysis on your #161 post Rashomon!

[rashomon]

Great analysis on your #161 post Rashomon!
Thanks, Ralia. :seeya:

[sharlock]

Thankyou NP I have started late 2night (nearly 1am in Oz)so chances are I'll only get time to catchup on what I've missed but I hope debates of those levels do continue, and yes I have already seen them many times yours included. That is why I love this forum. They are absolutely fascinating!:beer:
Sharlock

[Sharon]

Thankyou NP I have started late 2night (nearly 1am in Oz)so chances are I'll only get time to catchup on what I've missed but I hope debates of those levels do continue, and yes I have already seen them many times yours included. That is why I love this forum. They are absolutely fascinating!:beer:
Sharlock

Another Aussie!!!!! And a Queenslander no less!!!! j/k:beer:

[Sharon]

Great analysis on your #161 post Rashomon!

Its a great analysis alright..... but where is the proof that that (1) the fibre evidence actually exists eg. lab report, name of scientist etc (2) with such damning evidence why isnt there a conviction against the R. eg what more evidence do they need than this fibre evidence? and (3) what weight is to be given to this evidence (if it exists) in light of the fact that there were over 4000 fibres found on the crime scene eg this was the R. home, wouldnt you expect there fibres to be everywhere, and a few fibres out of thousands may not be that overwhelming, I dont know Im not a forensic expert? jmo

[sharlock]

And I really am sorry if I offended anyone, I guess I was sort of protecting Aussie because she puts so much effort into her posts here, and I didnt like the mockery towards her. But I guess she can look after herself!!
Still friends????
jmo
Really is a small world hey. Don't be to hard on yourself Sharon you think out your arguments well and this case gets to all of us. That poor little girl! Wouldn't it be nice to be able to solve it and let that little girl rest in peace at long last.

Its a great analysis alright..... but where is the proof that that (1) the fibre evidence actually exists eg. lab report, name of scientist etc (2) with such damning evidence why isnt there a conviction against the R. eg what more evidence do they need than this fibre evidence? and (3) what weight is to be given to this evidence (if it exists) in light of the fact that there were over 4000 fibres found on the crime scene eg this was the R. home, wouldnt you expect there fibres to be everywhere, and a few fibres out of thousands may not be that overwhelming, I dont know Im not a forensic expert? jmo


If there hadn't been sooooooooo many screwups with the case by the BP, then I would agree that it should be enough to go to trial but after OJ we all know that it wouldn't cut it in a court of law; when the trials perspective can easily be changed from who did the murder to how was the murder investigated. Surround Anita Cobby's case with the same kind of investigation and John Travers would likely be out taking in a movie. If this case ever goes to court now then the prosecution better be prepared for a trial against the murderer and the Boulder Police.;)

[thewhitewitch1]

No worries, Sharon. I wouldn't have said anything about what you wrote if you hadn't called me out on what I wrote. :biggrin:
I don't think the Ramseys staging was as complicated as you are making it out to be.
They only needed to construct the garrote and use it (and really, the handle could have been attatched after the fact...all that was really needed was the cord). Maybe they strangled her because she was suffering (convulsing) or maybe they could barely detect a heart beat. I won't go into why they didn't just call 911 again because explanations have been offered before for that. Anyway, then the wrist ligatures were added and the RN written. Not very indepth at all, was it? I don't think they gave any thought to fiber evidence or small details. It was not a mastermind crime and LE can and do know when a crime scene has been staged. IMO

[bullmoose]

It is obvious that the fiber evidence is a thorn in the IDIs side, hence your reply trying to minimize its significance.
DA Hunter was a non-nconfrontational wimp who used the grand jury to wash his hands of the case. That GJ was never ment to indict, which is why I think the Ramseys were not called called to testify.My grandson was playing cops and robbers, pointed his finger at me, and went 'bang, bang'; for some reason I immediately thought of your fiber evidence; because I guess if my grandson had been holding something other than an imaginary pistol, he might have shot me, there would have been an impact; similarly, when you go 'bang, bang, the fibers are real, bang, bang' I laugh then, too. Same kind of imagination, same kind of object, same impact. No indictment, no trial= No fibers.:lol: JMHO

[bullmoose]

No worries, Sharon. I wouldn't have said anything about what you wrote if you hadn't called me out on what I wrote. :biggrin:
I don't think the Ramseys staging was as complicated as you are making it out to be.
They only needed to construct the garrote and use it (and really, the handle could have been attatched after the fact...all that was really needed was the cord). Maybe they strangled her because she was suffering (convulsing) or maybe they could barely detect a heart beat. I won't go into why they didn't just call 911 again because explanations have been offered before for that. Anyway, then the wrist ligatures were added and the RN written. Not very indepth at all, was it? I don't think they gave any thought to fiber evidence or small details. It was not a mastermind crime and LE can and do know when a crime scene has been staged. IMOI do not think it took a mastermind to overwhelm the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD] given their lack of experience and lack of desire to let the FBI or anybody else grab the glory by helping them in those vital first couple days. I, of course, am an IDI, so I disagree with you totally except in that I think the crime scene was staged, but I think by the killer, not the parents. The botching of the investigation belongs entirely to the Twister and the Twisterific BPD. JMHO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

I do not think it took a mastermind to overwhelm the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD] given their lack of experience and lack of desire to let the FBI or anybody else grab the glory by helping them in those vital first couple days. I, of course, am an IDI, so I disagree with you totally except in that I think the crime scene was staged, but I think by the killer, not the parents. The botching of the investigation belongs entirely to the Twister and the Twisterific BPD. JMHO:biggrin:


Just out of curiousity, how many cases have you heard of where an outsider "breaks into" a home, murders a child and then stages a crime scene? How many cases do you know of where the purpose of staging is to "frame" someone? And I am talking about besides mystery novels, movies and tv shows. :biggrin:

[Miss Marple]

No worries, Sharon. I wouldn't have said anything about what you wrote if you hadn't called me out on what I wrote. :biggrin:
I don't think the Ramseys staging was as complicated as you are making it out to be.
They only needed to construct the garrote and use it (and really, the handle could have been attatched after the fact...all that was really needed was the cord). Maybe they strangled her because she was suffering (convulsing) or maybe they could barely detect a heart beat. I won't go into why they didn't just call 911 again because explanations have been offered before for that. Anyway, then the wrist ligatures were added and the RN written. Not very indepth at all, was it? I don't think they gave any thought to fiber evidence or small details. It was not a mastermind crime and LE can and do know when a crime scene has been staged. IMO

There's only 2 problems with this account:
a) The accidental head blow implicit in your account above is not supported by the forensic evidence as Elvislives and other physicians have explained thoroughly; the combination of the high force of the blow and lack of organization suggest the timing of a bed-wetting rage scenario, for example, is simply implausible.
b) The most seasoned LE investigator associated with this case, Lou Smit-- who originally assumed the parents did it based on what he'd been told and the rule of thumb that parents are involved in 90% of these cases--concluded after examining the evidence more thoroughly that the parents didn't do it and that the crime scene hadn't been staged in the fashion rookie investigator Steve Thomas mistakenly believed. Moreover, staging itself does not necessarily point to the parents: there are plenty of crime scenes in which an intruder has, for whatever motivation--shame, subterfuge, sending a message or pure theater--introduced elements of staging.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20Staging

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[andU]

WWI,
I've never heard of it before at all but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[thewhitewitch1]

WWI,
I've never heard of it before at all but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

On that note, just because the Ramseys don't fit into the typical killer family sterotype doesn't mean that it didn't happen either.

Miss Marple...there are conflicting time frames from experts regarding how long JB could have lived with that head injury. And even if the head injury did not come first, it does not mean that the Ramseys are innocent. It just means we don't know what happened or why. IMO

[andU]

On that note, just because the Ramseys don't fit into the typical killer family sterotype doesn't mean that it didn't happen either.
Ok, I can agree with it couldhave happened that way, but I believe not.

Miss Marple...there are conflicting time frames from experts regarding how long JB could have lived with that head injury. And even if the head injury did not come first, it does not mean that the Ramseys are innocent. It just means we don't know what happened or why. IMO

IT wouldn't let me respond only to the upper portion of your post as I attempted to; so I'm adding this to make IT happy....

[bullmoose]

Just out of curiousity, how many cases have you heard of where an outsider "breaks into" a home, murders a child and then stages a crime scene? How many cases do you know of where the purpose of staging is to "frame" someone? And I am talking about besides mystery novels, movies and tv shows. :biggrin:In Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, two years ago in May, we had the Groene Murders, where a nutcase homosexual and pedaphile[really,both] spotted children playing in the yard of a rural home from Interstate 90, came back with nightvision goggles,broke into the house and subdued and duct-taped the mother,the 200 pound stepfather and teenage brother; took the targeted victims, duct-taped to his stolen vehicle, then returned and beat the three in the house to death with a framing hammer. He got clean away, too, and was only caught because of what might have been a latent desire to be caught, six weeks later, he took the single surviving child, Shasta to a Denny's restaurant at 3 AM,to eat even though her picture was on every information board within 200 miles; thankfully she was recognized. But what Duncan, the killer did turned out to be highly effective staging, the crime scene made the cops and FBI think it was either a drug deal revenge killing or a payback killing by the estranged father. This was widely believed, it made sense, the evidence didn't point to what turned out to be the culprit, a random massacre. Everybody believed the father was the key to it all, even the vaunted FBI. Because of the resolution of the case, we are not talking about the case on the message boards, but IMHO, really strange murders like this happen from time to time. If Duncan had killed and disposed of Shasta as he did her brother, Dylan, who he also abducted; by burning the body, to this day nobody would have any idea of what really happened. He left no fingerprints, because he wore gloves; everybody would still be assuming it was the father, who, coincidentally, is fighting throat cancer and may or may not survive. I agree that this case is a strange one, but strange ones do happen. Just 35 miles from my front door.

[shill]

Read Duncan's blog and you will see how twisted these kinds of killer/ predators are.

[Miss Marple]

On that note, just because the Ramseys don't fit into the typical killer family sterotype doesn't mean that it didn't happen either.
I'm with Bullmoose on this: I'm not arguing this is impossible, only that given a choice between RDI and IDI, I think the WEIGHT of the evidence--not every single shred of it--leans in the IDI direction, so if I were LE, I wouldn't be calling off the hunt on grounds that we know who the real killer was.


Miss Marple...there are conflicting time frames from experts regarding how long JB could have lived with that head injury. And even if the head injury did not come first, it does not mean that the Ramseys are innocent. It just means we don't know what happened or why. IMO
Sure, but the longest I've seen is maybe 60 minutes. I just find it hard to picture a plausible scenario in which the Ramseys would get around to strangling her within that time-frame even in the improbable event the blow was accidental. Remember that garroting in this scenario is merely staging: it's not like there's some time urgency in getting it out of the way. Wouldn't it be pretty much the LAST thing you did after you'd satisfied yourself everything else in your staging scenario was going to work out, including writing the RN etc.? I think the other thing that's never made sense to me is why you'd cover up a head blow with garroting. It would have been WAY simpler to hold her at the top of the circular staircase and let her tumble down. "Oh, officer, we have NO IDEA why she'd go down to the kitchen late at night. She's never ever done that in her life. Maybe she was so excited about the Big Red Boat she couldn't sleep." Autopsy cause of death: broken neck, end of story.

So even when I imagine Ramseys POSSIBLY covering up an accidental head-blow, strangulation (and particularly the sexual assault aspect) are very far from the top of the list of plausible ways in which I'd imagine them executing such a plan.

But if the head-blow was not accidental and instead deliberate, then my sticking point is imagining Ramseys doing this. Unless I've got some pattern of family violence or psychopathology for one or both parents, it's hard to make this scenario trump any plain vanilla IDI scenario even if I can't place a particular intruder in the house.

If the head blow DIDN'T come first, I have the same problems with strangulation. The only accidental strangulation scenario I can envision is Wecht's EA sex game gone awry. Such things surely happen (though probably not with great frequency between SIX-YEAR-OLDS and their dads: nearly all the clinical evidence points to EA as occurring between consenting adults, where the female would actually derive some pleasure from the experience. Karr's account certainly made me think about this again, but I have no expertise to know whether what he described doing to little girls (not just JBR) was even remotely plausible; the mere fact that he appears to have turned out to be a liar about JBR doesn't entirely rule out the possibility, but I'd rather hear some experts or other corroboration before I bought this tale hook, line and sinker). But again, unless you can provide actual evidence that JR was actually into that sort of thing--and there is certainly counter-evidence in the form of what Melinda has said about this--you couldn't convince me to buy this scenario over an IDI scenario.

But that brings us back to deliberate strangulation, with all the attendant flaws of a premeditated murder by head-blow. Whereas maybe you can convince me that even an otherwise decent, loving parent might be induced to spare their remaining child the trauma of seeing a parent imprisoned for accidentally killing his younger sister, it is REALLY hard to picture either of those two individuals rationalizing the cover-up of their spouse's cold-blooded murder. How could one ever feel remotely safe again with that person? Wouldn't you be wondering every night whether that would be the night your spouse killed YOU to be certain you never were tempted to rat them out to LE?

Hope you can understand why I lean IDI.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[shill]

It is obvious that the fiber evidence is a thorn in the IDIs side, hence your reply trying to minimize its significance.
But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

Police: “Was there any conversation immediately following your last word to the dispatcher?”
Patsy: “I don’t remember. I was out of my mind. My child was missing. I was trying to convey that to the person on the other end of the line. OK? I don’t remember. If you have it on tape, and you’d like me to hear it, I’ll listen to it and see if that jogs my memory.”

Police: “It’s on tape.”

Patsy: “OK.”

Police: “OK.

Patsy: “All right. Well if you’ve got it on the tape and we can play it, then I will try to help you. But I can’t remember which end was up about that time.”

At which point the detective changes the subject.

And then there's this....

And in a June 1998 police interrogation of the Ramseys, police seem to suggest that the DNA does incriminate them.

Police: “If I told you right now that we have — in the process of being examined — trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of JonBenet, what would you tell me?”

Patsy: “That’s totally impossible. Go re-test.”

Police: “How is it impossible?”

Patsy: “I did not kill my child. I didn’t have a thing to do with it.”

Police: “I’m talking about scientific evidence.”

Patsy: “I don’t give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board. I didn’t do it. John Ramsey didn’t do it, and we don’t have a clue of anybody who did do it. Quit screwing around asking me about things that are ridiculous and let’s find the person that did this.”

“It’s a common investigative technique to suggest to somebody that you have more evidence than maybe you really do in order to try to get them to confess,” says Demuth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/


DA Hunter was a non-nconfrontational wimp who used the grand jury to wash his hands of the case. That GJ was never ment to indict, which is why I think the Ramseys were not called called to testify.

You keep showing your hand and all your holding is Steve Thomas, and you're betting everything on him.

[Athena]

Thanks Shill for posting that statement by DeMuth. Also like to point out that Kane was put in charge of the Grand Jury. The final nay or yea was up to Hunter but up until that point Kane was in charge. And JR was just as adamant re: those shirt fibers as Patsy was when she made her bold statement. I truly don't understand how people have a problem with invesigators/interrogators misrepresenting so-called evidence.

[bullmoose]

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

Police: “Was there any conversation immediately following your last word to the dispatcher?”
Patsy: “I don’t remember. I was out of my mind. My child was missing. I was trying to convey that to the person on the other end of the line. OK? I don’t remember. If you have it on tape, and you’d like me to hear it, I’ll listen to it and see if that jogs my memory.”

Police: “It’s on tape.”

Patsy: “OK.”

Police: “OK.

Patsy: “All right. Well if you’ve got it on the tape and we can play it, then I will try to help you. But I can’t remember which end was up about that time.”

At which point the detective changes the subject.

And then there's this....

And in a June 1998 police interrogation of the Ramseys, police seem to suggest that the DNA does incriminate them.

Police: “If I told you right now that we have — in the process of being examined — trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of JonBenet, what would you tell me?”

Patsy: “That’s totally impossible. Go re-test.”

Police: “How is it impossible?”

Patsy: “I did not kill my child. I didn’t have a thing to do with it.”

Police: “I’m talking about scientific evidence.”

Patsy: “I don’t give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board. I didn’t do it. John Ramsey didn’t do it, and we don’t have a clue of anybody who did do it. Quit screwing around asking me about things that are ridiculous and let’s find the person that did this.”

“It’s a common investigative technique to suggest to somebody that you have more evidence than maybe you really do in order to try to get them to confess,” says Demuth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/




You keep showing your hand and all your holding is Steve Thomas, and you're betting everything on him.In the game of Poker it is an accepted strategy to bluff your opponent into thinking you are holding better cards than you actually have, so that he will fold, or give up on the hand. There is a danger to this strategy insofar as your opponent can call your bluff; then you have to show your cards, if you aren't holding a good hand, then you lose. The cops in their questioning of both Ramseys bluffed a great deal on evidence they didn't have, whenever called on their bluff, they folded like the four-flushers they were. Even a Joker like the Twister could only come up with what was, IMO, a busted hand, a simpleton's theory. But thats JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

In the game of Poker it is an accepted strategy to bluff your opponent into thinking you are holding better cards than you actually have, so that he will fold, or give up on the hand. There is a danger to this strategy insofar as your opponent can call your bluff; then you have to show your cards, if you aren't holding a good hand, then you lose. The cops in their questioning of both Ramseys bluffed a great deal on evidence they didn't have, whenever called on their bluff, they folded like the four-flushers they were. Even a Joker like the Twister could only come up with what was, IMO, a busted hand, a simpleton's theory. But thats JMHO:biggrin:

Great analogy! :beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

I'm with Bullmoose on this: I'm not arguing this is impossible, only that given a choice between RDI and IDI, I think the WEIGHT of the evidence--not every single shred of it--leans in the IDI direction, so if I were LE, I wouldn't be calling off the hunt on grounds that we know who the real killer was.


Sure, but the longest I've seen is maybe 60 minutes. I just find it hard to picture a plausible scenario in which the Ramseys would get around to strangling her within that time-frame even in the improbable event the blow was accidental. Remember that garroting in this scenario is merely staging: it's not like there's some time urgency in getting it out of the way. Wouldn't it be pretty much the LAST thing you did after you'd satisfied yourself everything else in your staging scenario was going to work out, including writing the RN etc.? I think the other thing that's never made sense to me is why you'd cover up a head blow with garroting. It would have been WAY simpler to hold her at the top of the circular staircase and let her tumble down. "Oh, officer, we have NO IDEA why she'd go down to the kitchen late at night. She's never ever done that in her life. Maybe she was so excited about the Big Red Boat she couldn't sleep." Autopsy cause of death: broken neck, end of story.

So even when I imagine Ramseys POSSIBLY covering up an accidental head-blow, strangulation (and particularly the sexual assault aspect) are very far from the top of the list of plausible ways in which I'd imagine them executing such a plan.

But if the head-blow was not accidental and instead deliberate, then my sticking point is imagining Ramseys doing this. Unless I've got some pattern of family violence or psychopathology for one or both parents, it's hard to make this scenario trump any plain vanilla IDI scenario even if I can't place a particular intruder in the house.

If the head blow DIDN'T come first, I have the same problems with strangulation. The only accidental strangulation scenario I can envision is Wecht's EA sex game gone awry. Such things surely happen (though probably not with great frequency between SIX-YEAR-OLDS and their dads: nearly all the clinical evidence points to EA as occurring between consenting adults, where the female would actually derive some pleasure from the experience. Karr's account certainly made me think about this again, but I have no expertise to know whether what he described doing to little girls (not just JBR) was even remotely plausible; the mere fact that he appears to have turned out to be a liar about JBR doesn't entirely rule out the possibility, but I'd rather hear some experts or other corroboration before I bought this tale hook, line and sinker). But again, unless you can provide actual evidence that JR was actually into that sort of thing--and there is certainly counter-evidence in the form of what Melinda has said about this--you couldn't convince me to buy this scenario over an IDI scenario.

But that brings us back to deliberate strangulation, with all the attendant flaws of a premeditated murder by head-blow. Whereas maybe you can convince me that even an otherwise decent, loving parent might be induced to spare their remaining child the trauma of seeing a parent imprisoned for accidentally killing his younger sister, it is REALLY hard to picture either of those two individuals rationalizing the cover-up of their spouse's cold-blooded murder. How could one ever feel remotely safe again with that person? Wouldn't you be wondering every night whether that would be the night your spouse killed YOU to be certain you never were tempted to rat them out to LE?

Hope you can understand why I lean IDI.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple


60 minutes...an hour. That's a pretty long time to be able to think and act on something. Yes, I know it sounds crazy but suppose the "terrorist" idea came to mind while trying to figure out what to do; hence the garrote and subsequent ransom note.
If one of the parents lost their temper and pushed JB hard or hit her hard in the head; technically that would be an accident and yes, I can see a spouse helping to cover for the other. I don't suppose they'd be real happy about it but if it was for the good of the remaining family, yes, I can envision that.
I don't think tossing her down the stairs would have worked. First of all, I don't think they even knew the pineapple would be an issue so they could not concoct the story of "she was excited and got up and ate pineapple and then fell down the stairs". Second, the head injury would not have been consistant with a fall down the stairs. Forensics does have a way of determining these things. Also, it is not necessarily going to mean a certain death. Third, while strangling your daughter is horrible (though if she were face down at the time, you would not have to see her face) but how horrible would it be to hurl your child down a flight of stairs? They may have thought she was dead when they applied the garrote; or if not, near death and maybe used it to end her suffering. Tossing her down the stairs is a more
callous act. IMO As far as the sexual assult; I do not mean to minimize the deed but it would not have taken much to just jab that paintbrush once for the sake of making it look like a pedophile was involved. I am saying that it was not a long drawn out sexual assult and I am not saying that it would be easy for a parent to do but it would have been fast. IMO
I can not pretend to know what happened that night. I have questions regarding the Ramseys that have not been answered sufficiently to erase my suspicions of them. I think Patsy (or Burke) hurt JB accidentally for whatever reason and then John did most of the staging, as he was the more "cool headed" of the two. I think they both wrote the RN....thought it up and wrote it together.
Each scenerio, IDI or RDI seems implausable in their own ways so I don't think anyone is "wrong" or "crazy" for believing either.

[Sharon]

If there hadn't been sooooooooo many screwups with the case by the BP, then I would agree that it should be enough to go to trial but after OJ we all know that it wouldn't cut it in a court of law; when the trials perspective can easily be changed from who did the murder to how was the murder investigated. Surround Anita Cobby's case with the same kind of investigation and John Travers would likely be out taking in a movie. If this case ever goes to court now then the prosecution better be prepared for a trial against the murderer and the Boulder Police.;)[/QUOTE]


What you say may be true, but it doesnt prove to me that the fibre evidence exists.

Im not saying it doesnt exist......but.....and hear me out....if (1) there is no direct cite from the sourse where the fibre evidence was reported (2) the powers that be choose not to use the evidence for whatever reason (3) no one can say with any certainty what a few fibres mean in the context of thousands of foreign fibres found.......if all of these questions remain unanswered, then for all intents and purposes there may as well be no fibre evidense.

You (universal you) cant say they are guilty by reason of fibre evidence but not be able to show where the report came from, what it means in context, and then say that the authorities dont want to use it because they have `issues` with a court case and are still trying to work out a strategy.
And, I sort of think the idea that any one is still building a case against the R. is a`dont hold your breath` sort of situation. Plenty of court cases have been fought & won since OJ, its not as if the whole justice system came to a crippling hault!!!

Its like me saying.... (warning.this is not real, for illustration purposes only).....that the R. confessed, and some people heard it, and its even on tape, but... the authorities are keeping this evidence under wraps until they come up with sure fire strategy to win in a no risk court case, and then they will use the tapes. Well, for all intent and purposes the tapes may as well not exist.

But really, I would love to have more than a reference to the idea that the fibres exist, I want hard proof. jmo

[Sharon]

No worries, Sharon. I wouldn't have said anything about what you wrote if you hadn't called me out on what I wrote. :biggrin:
I don't think the Ramseys staging was as complicated as you are making it out to be.
They only needed to construct the garrote and use it (and really, the handle could have been attatched after the fact...all that was really needed was the cord). Maybe they strangled her because she was suffering (convulsing) or maybe they could barely detect a heart beat. I won't go into why they didn't just call 911 again because explanations have been offered before for that. Anyway, then the wrist ligatures were added and the RN written. Not very indepth at all, was it? I don't think they gave any thought to fiber evidence or small details. It was not a mastermind crime and LE can and do know when a crime scene has been staged. IMO

WW, its not the technical difficulty that I was refering to......most people could not do what you have described to a dog or cat, let alone their own child. eg why would they have even considered strangling her for any reason let alone that she was suffering. Were they severely mentally disabled or on drugs, were they phycotic with voices telling them to do satanical things? Otherwise, your explaination makes no sense. You make it sound so easy, do you really think parents operate like that? Do you really think you could slip a noose around your childs neck even for pretend.....I would love the general community to be polled on this. I am guessing a universal no way!!! jmo

[andU]

..........
............
Each scenerio, IDI or RDI seems implausable in their own ways so I don't think anyone is "wrong" or "crazy" for believing either.
...................

I agree with this part of your post and I give you credit for saying that either RDI or IDI is at least plausable.

[sharlock]

So would I, but I'm just saying that it is common for police to hold onto fibre evidence and not utilise it in court no matter how good. There was one case and it has vague similarities to this where a man broke into his neighbours house and sexually abused and killed a little girl call Heather Coffin then left while the Mum Dad and other children were in the house. The father said he had heard a cry but thought it was the younger baby went to get the bottle and noticed the door wide open checked on his daughter and found her dead. He was suspected and ruled out because sperm sample didn't match(before dna time at this point) They found a perfect match with hair sample to the man that did it and had fiber evidence but said it was to risky to go to court because it wasn't enough; 10 yrs later they try mitochondrial dna can't use it so give up again few more years later finally figure out hat the swabs that they had used up when it first happened still had a minute trace which they pulled dna from and only then did they go to arrest him----but they still thought it wasn't enough so they bluffed him into confessing. :)

[thewhitewitch1]

WW, its not the technical difficulty that I was refering to......most people could not do what you have described to a dog or cat, let alone their own child. eg why would they have even considered strangling her for any reason let alone that she was suffering. Were they severely mentally disabled or on drugs, were they phycotic with voices telling them to do satanical things? Otherwise, your explaination makes no sense. You make it sound so easy, do you really think parents operate like that? Do you really think you could slip a noose around your childs neck even for pretend.....I would love the general community to be polled on this. I am guessing a universal no way!!! jmo

Sharon, you can ask as many people that you'd like what they would do and if they could do what I think the Ramseys did. It doesn't matter. They have not and probably will not ever be in that position. You can't guess what anyone would do in that situation. Every person is different. To your face and in their minds, right now they would say absolutely "hell no!" and the Ramseys might have said the same if asked that question before that night.
We are not them. Desperate times cause for desperate measures. If RDIs can be chastised for criticizing the Ramseys choices after the RN was read because "we don't know how we would have reacted", why can this same train of thought not apply to "we don't know what we would have done" if we had accidentally harmed our child and thought we might go to jail, we may lose our son, we may ruin all of our lives (socially, financially etc) or all of the above. Until you are in the same situation ( and God forbid we ever are), you can not know what you are capable of for the sake of self-preservation. IMO

[Sharon]

Sharon, you can ask as many people that you'd like what they would do and if they could do what I think the Ramseys did. It doesn't matter. They have not and probably will not ever be in that position. You can't guess what anyone would do in that situation. Every person is different. To your face and in their minds, right now they would say absolutely "hell no!" and the Ramseys might have said the same if asked that question before that night.
We are not them. Desperate times cause for desperate measures. If RDIs can be chastised for criticizing the Ramseys choices after the RN was read because "we don't know how we would have reacted", why can this same train of thought not apply to "we don't know what we would have done" if we had accidentally harmed our child and thought we might go to jail, we may lose our son, we may ruin all of our lives (socially, financially etc) or all of the above. Until you are in the same situation ( and God forbid we ever are), you can not know what you are capable of for the sake of self-preservation. IMO


But there is a range of normal, a bell curve, from which we can predict behavior in otherwise normal people. It is sometimes hard to account for stupidity, or bad choices, or things that dont make sence in actions, but some things are a given, and you would be hard pressed to prove in any way, even to medical professionals that parents would be capable of doing this.

Now, if the parents had a mental problem, or some phycotic disorder it is different. But, behaviour such as what you propose is off the bell curve.

For example, I know that I wouldnt do this because it wouldnt even occur to me. I dont think (normal) parents are wired to kill their kids under any circumstances. Infact most parents would die for their kids. jmo

[bullmoose]

So would I, but I'm just saying that it is common for police to hold onto fibre evidence and not utilise it in court no matter how good. There was one case and it has vague similarities to this where a man broke into his neighbours house and sexually abused and killed a little girl call Heather Coffin then left while the Mum Dad and other children were in the house. The father said he had heard a cry but thought it was the younger baby went to get the bottle and noticed the door wide open checked on his daughter and found her dead. He was suspected and ruled out because sperm sample didn't match(before dna time at this point) They found a perfect match with hair sample to the man that did it and had fiber evidence but said it was to risky to go to court because it wasn't enough; 10 yrs later they try mitochondrial dna can't use it so give up again few more years later finally figure out hat the swabs that they had used up when it first happened still had a minute trace which they pulled dna from and only then did they go to arrest him----but they still thought it wasn't enough so they bluffed him into confessing. :)I hate to pop your bubble of logic on this one, Sharlock; but the fiber evidence that we are discussing involves John Ramsey's Israeli-manufactured shirt that he was wearing on 12/25/96; the claim made during questioning by Levin was that they had a match of those fibers in Jonbenet's genital area. It was clearly a bluff, because when Lin Wood, John's Lawyer asked to see evidence that such fibers existed, which he had the legal right to demand, before John would answer, Levin folded and withdrew the question. Your example that you quote involves DNA and DNA testing technology, which does not pertain to the Imaginary Fibers in the least; as for the ruse of the bluff to get the guity man in the case you are speaking of; thats wonderful that they got him to cofess; but since the BPD's bluff that they tried on John Ramsey went no further than a busted flush, what is the relevance of your story to the case? Be assured, if the fiber evidence had been real in this case it would have been damning to the Ramseys, and would have led to indictment and probable conviction. The Boulder cops did not hold back the fiber evidence; they never had it. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

Once again, Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share potentially condemning evidence with the prime suspects, and ending that line of questioning is in no way an admission of deception...but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand that, or even admit that's possible. The evidence is so damning to the IDI pov that all they can do is proclaim it a lie with absolutely no proof whatsoever that it does not exist. According to Levin, who was at the CBI labs in person, this evidence exists - and Levin has the reputation of being an honest man. Check his credentials.

Bullmoose insists that the fiber evidence is imaginary, yet he has no proof that it is. He just wants it to be imaginary so bad that there's no other option in his mind than it must all be a lie. Prove it, bullmoose. Prove that Levin made it all up and there was never any fiber evidence connecting the Rs to JonBenet's body and the crime scene.

[Eagle1]

I think we all admit there were some dark fibers, but the point is they could have been there innocently from just living in the house, although those clothes were new.

Probably clothes shed more when they're worn for the first time?????

[Athena]

Once again, Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share potentially condemning evidence with the prime suspects, and ending that line of questioning is in no way an admission of deception...but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand that, or even admit that's possible. The evidence is so damning to the IDI pov that all they can do is proclaim it a lie with absolutely no proof whatsoever that it does not exist. According to Levin, who was at the CBI labs in person, this evidence exists - and Levin has the reputation of being an honest man. Check his credentials.

Bullmoose insists that the fiber evidence is imaginary, yet he has no proof that it is. He just wants it to be imaginary so bad that there's no other option in his mind than it must all be a lie. Prove it, bullmoose. Prove that Levin made it all up and there was never any fiber evidence connecting the Rs to JonBenet's body and the crime scene.

Works both ways -- prove that he did not misrepresent the evidence. Just as you say "again" I say again that this happens every single day. Has nothing to do with how "honest" someone is. It comes with the territory. It's not even really considered dishonest/illegal unless it is misrepresented in court since misrepresentation are allowed in interviews/interrogations by prosecutors and police. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

As Rashomon has pointed out, had this gotten to trial, deception liked that would have jeopardized the case. He was interviewing on behalf of the United States. He knows what CBI found because he visited the CBI lab personally. I don't believe we can assume Levin was attempting to deceive John Ramsey about the fiber evidence just because he ended the line of questioning rather than give potentially condemning information to the prime suspects. He was under no obligation to do so, and really, I think it's pretty obvious that he didn't think it a good idea to hand over the lab results to them because he didn't want to hand out information he wasn't required. Lin Wood did not seem to think Levin was attempting to deceive John Ramsey about the presence of fiber evidence. Levin was not being confrontational with JR, either, he just asked about the fibers. When JR became indignant and Wood refused to have him answer, Levin moved on. How did you come to the conclusion that Levin was lying about the existence of the fiber evidence?

[Jayelles]

As Rashomon has pointed out, had this gotten to trial, deception liked that would have jeopardized the case. He was interviewing on behalf of the United States. He knows what CBI found because he visited the CBI lab personally. I don't believe we can assume Levin was attempting to deceive John Ramsey about the fiber evidence just because he ended the line of questioning rather than give potentially condemning information to the prime suspects. He was under no obligation to do so, and really, I think it's pretty obvious that he didn't think it a good idea to hand over the lab results to them because he didn't want to hand out information he wasn't required. Lin Wood did not seem to think Levin was attempting to deceive John Ramsey about the presence of fiber evidence. Levin was not being confrontational with JR, either, he just asked about the fibers. When JR became indignant and Wood refused to have him answer, Levin moved on. How did you come to the conclusion that Levin was lying about the existence of the fiber evidence?

Lou Smit admitted that he sometimes bends the truth when interviewing a suspect. OTOH, I know that police also sometimes like to keep a few aces up their sleeves. They might hint at evidence which they have but refuse to show it.

[Zoey]

Once again, Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share potentially condemning evidence with the prime suspects, and ending that line of questioning is in no way an admission of deception...but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand that, or even admit that's possible. The evidence is so damning to the IDI pov that all they can do is proclaim it a lie with absolutely no proof whatsoever that it does not exist. According to Levin, who was at the CBI labs in person, this evidence exists - and Levin has the reputation of being an honest man. Check his credentials.

Bullmoose insists that the fiber evidence is imaginary, yet he has no proof that it is. He just wants it to be imaginary so bad that there's no other option in his mind than it must all be a lie. Prove it, bullmoose. Prove that Levin made it all up and there was never any fiber evidence connecting the Rs to JonBenet's body and the crime scene.


There is no possible way for Bullmoose to prove that the fiber evidence is imaginary because something that is imaginary does not exist, therefore it cannot be proven (whew, got all that out in one sentence). IMO.

If there is indeed fiber evidence, I find it amazing that it was brought up very briefly in one interview and never dealt with again. Had there really been this damning evidence against JR, he would have been drilled on it by every possible person there was at every single interview. He was asked about it once. IMO, he was asked about it once and only once because it was a bluff, and it did not work.

And this nonesense about Levins honesty. It doesn't matter if the Pope had been doing the interviews, if he thought he could get something out of JR that would have put him away, he would have lied to get him to say it. It is the way interrogations and depositions are done. IMO. Lawyers pull stuff out of thin air to throw at someone hoping it will trip a person up. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. IMO.

[bullmoose]

There is no possible way for Bullmoose to prove that the fiber evidence is imaginary because something that is imaginary does not exist, therefore it cannot be proven (whew, got all that out in one sentence). IMO.

If there is indeed fiber evidence, I find it amazing that it was brought up very briefly in one interview and never dealt with again. Had there really been this damning evidence against JR, he would have been drilled on it by every possible person there was at every single interview. He was asked about it once. IMO, he was asked about it once and only once because it was a bluff, and it did not work.

And this nonesense about Levins honesty. It doesn't matter if the Pope had been doing the interviews, if he thought he could get something out of JR that would have put him away, he would have lied to get him to say it. It is the way interrogations and depositions are done. IMO. Lawyers pull stuff out of thin air to throw at someone hoping it will trip a person up. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. IMO.NP, I have my own experience with Idaho Law Enforcement at which time the questioners lied through their teeth as to claimed evidence, it too was non-existant, as the crime they were investigating did not happen in the way they theorized. I kept teling them to show me such evidence if they had it, to which they would yell and get abusive about GD perps,etc. Later, when my lawyer forced the prosecution to produce the videotapes, they had been professionally edited and all obscenity by the cops had been expunged with a redubbed G version of very gentle question-asking. Close to thirty minutes had been edited right out of the tape, apparently it was too heated to redub in a believable fashion. Believe me or don't, I don't care, but it really happened just as I'm describing; in the end the charges were all dropped against me because the Idaho State Police didn't show up in court. Personally, I don't think that any of them wanted to explain the thirty minute hole in the tape. But I can and testify to the fact that LE will cheerfully lie and perjure themselves under oath without a thought of it being wrong; they believe they are always the good guys, and that the ends justify the means. As for proving the fibers are Imaginary, that ranks up there with proving that there are no fying saucers with little green or gray people in them. How can I disprove the existance of something that doesn't exist to those who believe so fervantly in them? JMHO

[bullmoose]

NP: I forgot my proof of irrefutable evidence in my earlier post, so here goes; 1No arrest+2No Indictment+3No trial=0% possibility of existance John's shirt fibers actually found on Jonbenet's genital area+ 0% likelihood of aforementioned fibers being more than Imaginary. This my mathamatical 'proof'. JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

As Rashomon has pointed out, had this gotten to trial, deception liked that would have jeopardized the case. He was interviewing on behalf of the United States. He knows what CBI found because he visited the CBI lab personally. I don't believe we can assume Levin was attempting to deceive John Ramsey about the fiber evidence just because he ended the line of questioning rather than give potentially condemning information to the prime suspects. He was under no obligation to do so, and really, I think it's pretty obvious that he didn't think it a good idea to hand over the lab results to them because he didn't want to hand out information he wasn't required. Lin Wood did not seem to think Levin was attempting to deceive John Ramsey about the presence of fiber evidence. Levin was not being confrontational with JR, either, he just asked about the fibers. When JR became indignant and Wood refused to have him answer, Levin moved on. How did you come to the conclusion that Levin was lying about the existence of the fiber evidence?

NP the case did not get to court. We do not know if it was really evidence or not. None of us know whether Levin was telling the truth unless we read what are in the lab reports that none of us have seen. I'm not "assuming" Levin is deceiving JR - but it is very possible that he is misrepresenting the evidence he has. Just as it is possible that they were fibers from JR's shirt.

You are correct when you say the evidence does not have to be shown unless a person is charged. But you can't just say just because you believe Levin to be "honest" he wouldn't lie about the evidence. It just doesn't work that way and I've stated before I know this from first-hand experience.

We all bring our life experiences with us and perhaps had I never been confronted with something like this, I might agree with you but alas it happens; it happens everyday. Again the only way we would know if this evidence was presented and put to test in court or we read the lab reports. We could go round and round on this - but it stands as is - we don't know.

[thewhitewitch1]

WW, its not the technical difficulty that I was refering to......most people could not do what you have described to a dog or cat, let alone their own child. eg why would they have even considered strangling her for any reason let alone that she was suffering. Were they severely mentally disabled or on drugs, were they phycotic with voices telling them to do satanical things? Otherwise, your explaination makes no sense. You make it sound so easy, do you really think parents operate like that? Do you really think you could slip a noose around your childs neck even for pretend.....I would love the general community to be polled on this. I am guessing a universal no way!!! jmo

Honestly, I can't imagine a parent doing that either but if you were going to try to make your childs death look like an intruder did it and your first thought was "hey...terrorists"...you would have to make it look like a terrorist really did it. If they thought that JB was already dead, technically they did not strangle her. However, they had to put a tightened garrote around her neck to make it look "real". Maybe the strangulation was actually an accident also. Yes, I know that sounds crazy but what if..? She was not "brutally strangled" as the autopsy shows...meaning there was not excessive force shown. As I've said before, someone meaning to kill her by strangulation could have been much more forceful about it and the head blow would not have been necessary.
IMO

[Zoey]

Honestly, I can't imagine a parent doing that either but if you were going to try to make your childs death look like an intruder did it and your first thought was "hey...terrorists"...you would have to make it look like a terrorist really did it. If they thought that JB was already dead, technically they did not strangle her. However, they had to put a tightened garrote around her neck to make it look "real". Maybe the strangulation was actually an accident also. Yes, I know that sounds crazy but what if..? She was not "brutally strangled" as the autopsy shows...meaning there was not excessive force shown. As I've said before, someone meaning to kill her by strangulation could have been much more forceful about it and the head blow would not have been necessary.
IMO

I understand the what if of your post, but tww, you have to believe that someone used excessive force to strangle JB. The rope was so deeply impedded in her neck. Elvislives explained very thoroughly, I thought, that this was not caused by swelling post-mortem. I just don't know how much more forceful it could have been, short of beheading her, IMO.

[rashomon]

I understand the what if of your post, but tww, you have to believe that someone used excessive force to strangle JB. The rope was so deeply impedded in her neck. Elvislives explained very thoroughly, I thought, that this was not caused by swelling post-mortem. I just don't know how much more forceful it could have been, short of beheading her, IMO.
But there was swelling - look at this picture:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetneckgarrote.jpg

After all, at least 30 hours had elapsed since JB's death before this picture was taken.

If the rope had been so deeply embedded right from the start, then why wasn't there any damage done to her larynx?

[Zoey]

But there was swelling - look at this picture:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetneckgarrote.jpg

After all, at least 30 hours had elapsed since JB's death before this picture was taken.

If the rope had been so deeply embedded right from the start, then why wasn't there any damage done to her larynx?


I did not say there was no swelling. I said that Elvislives pointed out that the swelling would not have caused the cord to imbedd that deeply into her neck; that it was that deep to begin with and her neck then swelled around it. Big difference.


And to answer your question about the larynx, I found this:

The pediatric larynx is situated higher in the neck and is better protected by the mandible. Laryngeal fractures are less common because of the elasticity of the pediatric cartilaginous skeleton; however, the lack of extensive fibrous tissue support in the child and the relatively loose attachments of the mucous membranes increase the likelihood of soft tissue damage. Finally, the cricothyroid membrane is narrow in children and this reduces the likelihood of laryngotracheal separation.

[thewhitewitch1]

I understand the what if of your post, but tww, you have to believe that someone used excessive force to strangle JB. The rope was so deeply impedded in her neck. Elvislives explained very thoroughly, I thought, that this was not caused by swelling post-mortem. I just don't know how much more forceful it could have been, short of beheading her, IMO.

Being tightly tied around her neck would produce the same results as using excessive force, wouldn't it? Though there may not have been a lot of swelling, I would be willing to bet that the way the garrote looked when it was freshly applied looked a lot different than after she had been found many many hours later. IMO

[Zoey]

Being tightly tied around her neck would produce the same results as using excessive force, wouldn't it? Though there may not have been a lot of swelling, I would be willing to bet that the way the garrote looked when it was freshly applied looked a lot different than after she had been found many many hours later. IMO

I understand what you are saying. I am just, perhaps, looking at it in a different manner than you are. Yes, being tied tightly around her neck could have perhaps produced the same results. I was just looking at it as someone forcible "yanking" on the cord to get it that deeply imbedded in her neck.

Does that clear up anything as to what I was trying to say?

[thewhitewitch1]

I understand what you are saying. I am just, perhaps, looking at it in a different manner than you are. Yes, being tied tightly around her neck could have perhaps produced the same results. I was just looking at it as someone forcible "yanking" on the cord to get it that deeply imbedded in her neck.

Does that clear up anything as to what I was trying to say?


Yes, of course I understand what you were trying to say but we are in agreement that it could have happened either way, right?

[Zoey]

Yes, of course I understand what you were trying to say but we are in agreement that it could have happened either way, right?



Right....:)

[shill]

Once again, Levin was under no obligation whatsoever to share potentially condemning evidence with the prime suspects.

And yet he did!
Grow a brain NP.

[bullmoose]

And yet he did!
Grow a brain NP.Think for just a minute, NP, take a deep breath, no,no,hold it in, hold it in, okay okay, let it slowly out; now think, real hard: if the LE people Levin was one of was trying to keep from sharing what I would consider to be a devastating piece of evidence, if factual and not imaginary, then why on God's Green Earth would he throw it up there for the Ramseys to be able to counteract it if it were more than a thread from Rashie's Flying Carpet. Even for these belittled and benighted questioners like Levin surely common sense would have stayed their tongues if it were a real issue. Of course,in poker language again , a four-flusher will bluff just in case he can
trick his opponent into thinking he has a stroger hand than he does; but when challenged, as Levin was, he folded like any other tinhorn gambler. JMO

[Athena]

But there was swelling - look at this picture:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetneckgarrote.jpg

After all, at least 30 hours had elapsed since JB's death before this picture was taken.

If the rope had been so deeply embedded right from the start, then why wasn't there any damage done to her larynx?

Rash, here's some info on the hyoid bone that may answer your question in addition to what Zoey posted:

Ligature marks are a clue that the hyoid bone may be broken. As a general rule, on a post mortem exam, if a hyoid bone is fractured the death will be a homicide from strangulation until proven otherwise.45 However, because the two halves of the hyoid do not fuse until age 30, the hyoid may not break in younger victims who die as the result of strangulation.46 One third of manual strangulation victims have fractured hyoids.47

MNADV • 6-02 Strangulation Cases • Model Protocol for Md. Medical Practitioners Page 15


Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Observation of hyoid fracture in skeletonized remains offers potentially valuable information on the history of the skeleton or evidence of foul play, or both. Perimortem hyoid fracture frequently indicates manual strangulation, although ligature strangulation, hanging, and other forms of trauma to the neck cannot be ruled out without additional evidence. Such fractures are rare in children and infants, since the hyoid components are not fully ossified and are more flexible than in adults. Both antemortem and postmortem origins of the fractures must also be considered.
PMID: 1402747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The hyoid is the U-shaped bone of the neck that is fractured in one-third of all homicides by strangulation. On this basis, postmortem detection of hyoid fracture is relevant to the diagnosis of strangulation. However, since many cases lack a hyoid fracture, the absence of this finding does not exclude strangulation as a cause of death. The reasons why some hyoids fracture and others do not may relate to the nature and magnitude of force applied to the neck, age of the victim, nature of the instrument (ligature or hands) used to strangle, and intrinsic anatomic features of the hyoid bone. We compared the case profiles and xeroradiographic appearance of the hyoids of 20 victims of homicidal strangulation with and without hyoid fracture (n = 10, each). The fractured hyoids occurred in older victims of strangulation (39 +/- 14 years) when compared to the victims with unfractured hyoids (30 +/- 10 years). The age-dependency of hyoid fracture correlated with the degree of ossification or fusion of the hyoid synchondroses. The hyoid was fused in older victims of strangulation (41 +/- 12 years) whereas the unfused hyoids were found in the younger victims (28 +/- 10 years). In addition, the hyoid bone was ossified or fused in 70% of all fractured hyoids, but, only 30% of the unfractured hyoids were fused. The shape of the hyoid bone was also found to differentiate fractured and unfractured hyoids. Fractured hyoids were longer in the anterior-posterior plane and were more steeply sloping when compared with unfractured hyoids. These data indicate that hyoids of strangulation victims, with and without fracture, are distinguished by various indices of shape and rigidity. On this basis, it may be possible to explain why some victims of strangulation do not have fractured hyoid bones.
PMID: 8934706 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Eagle1]

...................... Be assured, if the fiber evidence had been real in this case it would have been damning to the Ramseys, and would have led to indictment and probable conviction. The Boulder cops did not hold back the fiber evidence; they never had it. IMO

The story keeps changing (?) about fibers. I always heard until recently that it was just "dark fibers".

[rashomon]

The story keeps changing (?) about fibers. I always heard until recently that it was just "dark fibers".

Two types of fibers were found on JB: (source: Bonita papers)
- blue cotton fibers in her vaginal area which could ot be traced to any item in the household. That they came from John's bathrobe has not been officially confirmed.
- black wool fibers which the CBI lab found to be consistent with fibers from John's shirt, and it was about these fibers that Levin asked John about.
Those black wool fibers were found on her external labia and in the crotch area of her underwear.

[elvislives]

So I for one will miss your presence. And I never did get around to asking you the other question I had which, was why do you think an occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial infiltrate in the thyroid was seen by the coroner in the autopsy examination? I have always wondered if that could possibly have been the result of previous applications of a garotte to her neck on previous occasions of sexual abuse. I would have loved to hear from you whether this is commonly seen in a child’s thyroid and if so, what is the cause.

seeya
aussie

Hi all and Happy St. Patrick's day. After having a large party yesterday, I found myself browsing thru my frig this morning looking at all of the mystery foods left by the caterers. So naturally it reminded me of this board and I thought I'd check in and see what kind of shenanigans were going on here...And there is a thread with my username on it!! Thank you, Aussie, you are very sweet. And thanks to everyone else for all the kind words. As for all the derisive comments, what can I say... I never made my points to win popularity.

I see Aussie that your question was answered by Zoey. But if you or anyone in the future has a question and would like my input , please post it--I will try and check in periodically.

Anyway, I just scanned thru the posts since there are so many new ones, and Miss Marple is an excellent addition to the board. It is nice to hear a new and intelligent voice of reason--especially from such an eloquent writer.

Happy sleuthing to all...I hope you solve the case ;)

Elvis

[rashomon]

Hi all and Happy St. Patrick's day. After having a large party yesterday, I found myself browsing thru my frig this morning looking at all of the mystery foods left by the caterers. So naturally it reminded me of this board and I thought I'd check in and see what kind of shenanigans were going on here...And there is a thread with my username on it!! Thank you, Aussie, you are very sweet. And thanks to everyone else for all the kind words. As for all the derisive comments, what can I say... I never made my points to win popularity.

I see Aussie that your question was answered by Zoey. But if you or anyone in the future has a question and would like my input , please post it--I will try and check in periodically.

Anyway, I just scanned thru the posts since there are so many new ones, and Miss Marple is an excellent addition to the board. It is nice to hear a new and intelligent voice of reason--especially from such an eloquent writer.

Happy sleuthing to all...I hope you solve the case ;)

Elvis
Hi Elvis, that's great to hear from you again!! You are being missed very much here. Sorry about all the preceding drama when hell broke loose here.
I never meant to hurt your feelings in any way - my sincere apologies.

Although I'm an RDI, I too think it's great to have Miss Marple here. MM is leaning toward IDI, but I have the impression that he really wants to discuss the case.

EL, there exists an autopsy picture where JBs neck looks swollen:http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetneckgarrote.jpg

Someone posted that you don't think the cord got embedded in JB's neck through post-mortem swelling.
About 30 hours had elapsed since JB's death when this picture was taken. Post-mortem swelling starts about 36 hours after death (correct me if I'm wrong). Could there exist some variables?

[Zoey]

Hi all and Happy St. Patrick's day. After having a large party yesterday, I found myself browsing thru my frig this morning looking at all of the mystery foods left by the caterers. So naturally it reminded me of this board and I thought I'd check in and see what kind of shenanigans were going on here...And there is a thread with my username on it!! Thank you, Aussie, you are very sweet. And thanks to everyone else for all the kind words. As for all the derisive comments, what can I say... I never made my points to win popularity.

I see Aussie that your question was answered by Zoey. But if you or anyone in the future has a question and would like my input , please post it--I will try and check in periodically.

Anyway, I just scanned thru the posts since there are so many new ones, and Miss Marple is an excellent addition to the board. It is nice to hear a new and intelligent voice of reason--especially from such an eloquent writer.

Happy sleuthing to all...I hope you solve the case ;)

Elvis

Elvis...great to hear from you. I miss you and your vast knowledge!! Come back anytime...we'll leave the light on!

Zoey

[Miss Marple]

Hi all and Happy St. Patrick's day. After having a large party yesterday, I found myself browsing thru my frig this morning looking at all of the mystery foods left by the caterers. So naturally it reminded me of this board and I thought I'd check in and see what kind of shenanigans were going on here...And there is a thread with my username on it!! Thank you, Aussie, you are very sweet. And thanks to everyone else for all the kind words. As for all the derisive comments, what can I say... I never made my points to win popularity.

I see Aussie that your question was answered by Zoey. But if you or anyone in the future has a question and would like my input , please post it--I will try and check in periodically.

Anyway, I just scanned thru the posts since there are so many new ones, and Miss Marple is an excellent addition to the board. It is nice to hear a new and intelligent voice of reason--especially from such an eloquent writer.

Happy sleuthing to all...I hope you solve the case ;)

Elvis

Elvis! Your check's in the mail!!! :-)

Seriously, it's great to hear you haven't disappeared forever. It's extraordinarily useful to have people who actually know something, be it medicine, law, or how law enforcement really works. That way, we amateurs have to do far less guessing (not that we're in any way inhibited about the latter). I'm sure our fractured understanding of the autopsy report and other medical-related evidence provides you (and maybe your buddies at work!) with no end of entertainment. Don't be a stranger.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Two types of fibers were found on JB: (source: Bonita papers)
- blue cotton fibers in her vaginal area which could ot be traced to any item in the household. That they came from John's bathrobe has not been officially confirmed.
- black wool fibers which the CBI lab found to be consistent with fibers from John's shirt, and it was about these fibers that Levin asked John about.
Those black wool fibers were found on her external labia and in the crotch area of her underwear.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that 2 different colors of fibers were found. The Bonita Papers only mentions blue fibers in the vaginal area.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5858

It's always evolving and never seems complete, but here's my take on the fiber evidence:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Fiber%20Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

I don't think it's a slam dunk that 2 different colors of fibers were found. The Bonita Papers only mentions blue fibers in the vaginal area.Miss Marple
Yes, but there were also small darkfibers found on JB's external labia, and it seems they were the black wool fibers which John was asked about.
From the Bonita papers:

During the vaginal examination, small dark coloredfibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia. A faint area of purple discoloration was noted on the right labia major. Vascular congestion was found along the inner membrane of the vaginal vault, and red water fluid, appearing to be blood, was present. The hymeneal opening had a mild abrasion, and the hymen appeared to have been torn. Dr. Meyer noted that the trauma to JonBenet’s vaginal area was consistent with digital, rather than penile penetration. He was not able to determine if there had been previous trauma to the vaginal area. 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.

[elvislives]

I'm sure our fractured understanding of the autopsy report and other medical-related evidence provides you (and maybe your buddies at work!) with no end of entertainment.


Certainly Not, Miss Marple!! Using a layperson's ignorance for our own entertainment value would be exceedingly unprofessional! No one in the medical community, and assuredly not yours truly, would ever sink to such depths...;)

[elvislives]

Elvis...great to hear from you. I miss you and your vast knowledge!! Come back anytime...we'll leave the light on!

Zoey


Thanks, Zoey. I am actually nursing a hangover today and am incapable of any constructive activity so I've spent much of the day reading the paper and surfing the net.
It might interest you to know that among the many leftovers I encountered in my frig today was a tupperware container of pineapple! I asked my husband if he recalled pineapple being served. He did not, but presumed it was a garnish on the cheese tray or something. There were also bags/containers/bowls of grapes, strawberries, melon, nuts and some whole unpeeled bananas and avocados :confused: .
I can only assume these were used as garnishes on some of the other dishes since we didnt have a fruit tray or fruit salad. And I swear I was sober when the caterers set up...;)
Any AA members of the board, please cut me some slack as my husband is of Irish ancestory and he would consider it grounds for divorce if I didn't imbibe on St. Patrick's day.:)

[Zoey]

Thanks, Zoey. I am actually nursing a hangover today and am incapable of any constructive activity so I've spent much of the day reading the paper and surfing the net.
It might interest you to know that among the many leftovers I encountered in my frig today was a tupperware container of pineapple! I asked my husband if he recalled pineapple being served. He did not, but presumed it was a garnish on the cheese tray or something. There were also bags/containers/bowls of grapes, strawberries, melon, nuts and some whole unpeeled bananas and avocados :confused: .
I can only assume these were used as garnishes on some of the other dishes since we didnt have a fruit tray or fruit salad. And I swear I was sober when the caterers set up...;)
Any AA members of the board, please cut me some slack as my husband is of Irish ancestory and he would consider it grounds for divorce if I didn't imbibe on St. Patrick's day.:)

Amazing Elvis...just amazing. Exactly what I have been saying...the pineapple could have been brought in by the caterers and Patsy nor John would have even known about.

Not a drop of Irish in me, so just another day to me!!

[concernedperson]

So far I am the only person to have met Patsy Ramsey.I have posted this before at WS. Patsy was extremely judgemental and agitated when I met her.It was over a UPS package...pretty much inconsequential in most of our minds. But, to her it was pivotal. Her rage was palpable and I actually backed away. Her voice was resounding in the leasing office where I worked at the time.

I felt then as I feel now that she wasn't in control of her emotions. The veins popping up in her neck were a dead giveaway. JMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Welcome Back, Elvis! Hope you head is improving as the day progresses. Sadly, the older you get the longer it takes to feel 100% again. So drink up while you're young! :-)

[Zoey]

So far I am the only person to have met Patsy Ramsey.I have posted this before at WS. Patsy was extremely judgemental and agitated when I met her.It was over a UPS package...pretty much inconsequential in most of our minds. But, to her it was pivotal. Her rage was palpable and I actually backed away. Her voice was resounding in the leasing office where I worked at the time.

I felt then as I feel now that she wasn't in control of her emotions. The veins popping up in her neck were a dead giveaway. JMO.


So far? That is a pretty bold statement as all of us on these boards use nics and most of us don't give out where we are from or who we know or where we work.

I could tell you what I do for a living and you have no way of proving otherwise. IMO, elvislives is the only one that has told what she does and it appears she is telling the truth!

And just because someone gets upset at UPS does not make them a murderer. If that was true, I think most people would kill the UPS guy, not their daughter.

[thewhitewitch1]

Amazing Elvis...just amazing. Exactly what I have been saying...the pineapple could have been brought in by the caterers and Patsy nor John would have even known about.

Not a drop of Irish in me, so just another day to me!!


Forgive me for being dumb, but is it an actual fact that there were caterers at the party on the 23rd? If so, why haven't any come forward to claim the pineapple? I do not buy that they don't want to get involved. That is lame. Even so...I can go along with caterers bringing it in but it does not explain why Patsy and Burkes prints were on the bowl of pineapple. You people sure believe in coincidences if you think their prints were on it from putting dishes away. I have a hard time even envisioning Patsy washing a dish, let alone putting one away. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

So far? That is a pretty bold statement as all of us on these boards use nics and most of us don't give out where we are from or who we know or where we work.

I could tell you what I do for a living and you have no way of proving otherwise. IMO, elvislives is the only one that has told what she does and it appears she is telling the truth!

And just because someone gets upset at UPS does not make them a murderer. If that was true, I think most people would kill the UPS guy, not their daughter.

She/he was only trying to give us her/his perspective on the behavior they observed by Patsy. They saw her agitated and angry and were only pointing out that she was capable of having these emotions, since most IDIs see her as "saint-like". IMO

[Zoey]

Forgive me for being dumb, but is it an actual fact that there were caterers at the party on the 23rd? If so, why haven't any come forward to claim the pineapple? I do not buy that they don't want to get involved. That is lame. Even so...I can go along with caterers bringing it in but it does not explain why Patsy and Burkes prints were on the bowl of pineapple. You people sure believe in coincidences if you think their prints were on it from putting dishes away. I have a hard time even envisioning Patsy washing a dish, let alone putting one away. IMO


They had a huge party just about 10 days or so prior to that and then another party. Do you seriously think Patsy cooked up everything. If you can't believe she didn't do a dish, why would you think she did any of the cooking and preparing for her home parties?

[concernedperson]

She/he was only trying to give us her/his perspective on the behavior they observed by Patsy. They saw her agitated and angry and were only pointing out that she was capable of having these emotions, since most IDIs see her as "saint-like". IMO

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was working on a Post property in Atlanta at the time while the Ramseys were building their house and they were leasing until the house was built. The property was Post Riverside. This is verifiable.

[Zoey]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was working on a Post property in Atlanta at the time while the Ramseys were building their house and they were leasing until the house was built. The property was Post Riverside. This is verifiable.


When they were building their house in Atlanta? Was this years before JB was murdered?

[thewhitewitch1]

They had a huge party just about 10 days or so prior to that and then another party. Do you seriously think Patsy cooked up everything. If you can't believe she didn't do a dish, why would you think she did any of the cooking and preparing for her home parties?


I thought that the party for the 23rd was done "last minute". Wasn't it called a "foyer party"? Now, I don't have a foyer and don't know what a "foyer party" is but is it possible that people brought dishes to the party like a pot-luck? Or maybe there was only something light served, such as party trays (which you can pick up at grocery stores or delis).
The "huge party" they had 10 days prior was for Patsys birthday, I believe and was not even held in their home.

[elvislives]

Forgive me for being dumb, but is it an actual fact that there were caterers at the party on the 23rd? If so, why haven't any come forward to claim the pineapple? I do not buy that they don't want to get involved. That is lame. Even so...I can go along with caterers bringing it in but it does not explain why Patsy and Burkes prints were on the bowl of pineapple. You people sure believe in coincidences if you think their prints were on it from putting dishes away. I have a hard time even envisioning Patsy washing a dish, let alone putting one away. IMO

TWW, I do not profess to know whether or not the Ramseys killed their daughter. The point I am trying to make is that some of the information that many use as "evidence" of the Ramsey's guilt is not evidence at all. The autopsy is evidence. Fiber, fingerprints, handwriting, dna, etc are evidence.
But Patsy not knowing that pineapple was in her house or not knowing when JB ate it is NOT evidence of her guilt imo. The reason I shared my personal experience is because there may very well be an innocuous explanation for her lack of knowledge regarding the pineapple. And I am fairly certain that after rummaging thru my own refrigerator today that my fingerprints are all over the containers, whether I put them into the frig, unloaded them from the dishwasher or not.
Of course Patsy could be lying to cover up her culpability in the murder of her daughter but you can't determine that from the pineapple evidence imo. It is totally unscientific.

[Louisadelmar]

I thought that the party for the 23rd was done "last minute". Wasn't it called a "foyer party"? Now, I don't have a foyer and don't know what a "foyer party" is but is it possible that people brought dishes to the party like a pot-luck? Or maybe there was only something light served, such as party trays (which you can pick up at grocery stores or delis).
The "huge party" they had 10 days prior was for Patsys birthday, I believe and was not even held in their home.

1997
TT: Okay. Um, you guys had a, a Foyer Group meeting back on the 13th.
PR: Right.
TT: You want kind of . . .
PR: What is that?
TT: What is the Foyer Group, yeah.
PR: The Foyer, it’s a Foyer dinner group from church . . .
TT: Okay.
PR: . . .from St. Johns and um, they have small groups , kind of a dinner group assigned and you meet with that group throughout the year, usually like school year.
TT: Um hum.
PR: And you have dinner in each others home, but this particular, there are like dinner, individual dinner groups of maybe six to ten that meet in each others homes and then the entire Foyer Dinner Group which is made up several of these smaller groups. . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .had a Christmas party at our house, so the entire group was invited.
TT: (Inaudible) the six to ten of that, six to ten couples or six to ten people?
PR: People.
TT: Okay.
PR: (Inaudible) Might be couples and singles.
[…]
TT: Patsy, let’s um, let’s kind of go back to December 23rd. I know you had a party at your house, quite a few people at the house.
PR: Um hum.

[bullmoose]

Yes, but there were also small darkfibers found on JB's external labia, and it seems they were the black wool fibers which John was asked about.
From the Bonita papers:

During the vaginal examination, small dark coloredfibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia. A faint area of purple discoloration was noted on the right labia major. Vascular congestion was found along the inner membrane of the vaginal vault, and red water fluid, appearing to be blood, was present. The hymeneal opening had a mild abrasion, and the hymen appeared to have been torn. Dr. Meyer noted that the trauma to JonBenet’s vaginal area was consistent with digital, rather than penile penetration. He was not able to determine if there had been previous trauma to the vaginal area. 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.The Bonita Papers are the records Rashie uses when the autopsy records don't give her what she needs to try to convince someone that non-existant things do exist. Give it up, Rashie, you cannot argue the wool fibers into existence, they weren't there and won't be the next twenty times you try to interject them into being. Just leave them where they've always been, in your imagination; better still, weave your flying carpet out of these threads, the carpet and the threads have the same basis in reality.JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

So far I am the only person to have met Patsy Ramsey.I have posted this before at WS. Patsy was extremely judgemental and agitated when I met her.It was over a UPS package...pretty much inconsequential in most of our minds. But, to her it was pivotal. Her rage was palpable and I actually backed away. Her voice was resounding in the leasing office where I worked at the time.

I felt then as I feel now that she wasn't in control of her emotions. The veins popping up in her neck were a dead giveaway. JMO.

Wow, I guess that`s it then. She must have definately killed her daughter and then staged all manner of weird & grotesque settups on the body. Im so glad you cleared that up for me. jmo

[Sharon]

TWW, I do not profess to know whether or not the Ramseys killed their daughter. The point I am trying to make is that some of the information that many use as "evidence" of the Ramsey's guilt is not evidence at all. The autopsy is evidence. Fiber, fingerprints, handwriting, dna, etc are evidence.
But Patsy not knowing that pineapple was in her house or not knowing when JB ate it is NOT evidence of her guilt imo. The reason I shared my personal experience is because there may very well be an innocuous explanation for her lack of knowledge regarding the pineapple. And I am fairly certain that after rummaging thru my own refrigerator today that my fingerprints are all over the containers, whether I put them into the frig, unloaded them from the dishwasher or not.
Of course Patsy could be lying to cover up her culpability in the murder of her daughter but you can't determine that from the pineapple evidence imo. It is totally unscientific.

Wecome back.........Im so glad you are back. We desperately need a voice of reason here. Its like some people must live in a paralell universe where every one who doesnt remember mundane superficial details like they are on a film are lying. And where normal everyday parents decide to brutelly kill their daughter over a non existant syndrome (toilet rage) and then stage her little body to cover every assult known to man from strangling to rape to terrorist attacks and ransom for good measure....as you do.

Hope to see more of your steady logic so I can sleep at night knowing there are some normal people out there! jmo

[Zoey]

Wow, I guess that`s it then. She must have definately killed her daughter and then staged all manner of weird & grotesque settups on the body. Im so glad you cleared that up for me. jmo


I find the post you are referring to just odd. Years before JB was murdered or perhaps even born, as I didn't get a response to my question, this person claims to have seen Patsy upset at the UPS people, so this must mean that this horrible anger was carried with her for all those years and then suddenly this anger comes boiling out and she murders her daughter?

[bullmoose]

I find the post you are referring to just odd. Years before JB was murdered or perhaps even born, as I didn't get a response to my question, this person claims to have seen Patsy upset at the UPS people, so this must mean that this horrible anger was carried with her for all those years and then suddenly this anger comes boiling out and she murders her daughter?I myself am very interested in meeting and finding out about a poster with over athousand posts that suddenly pops up on this board claiming a behavior of Patsy that would perhaps be intriguing if he said what year, where, all sorts of details to establish some kind of bona fides. I seem to remember some vaguely similar story last year, but this one was set in a post office, and sort of fizzled as I recall when certain questions were made of it. I guess we'll see with this one, too. JMHO