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

[aussiesheila]

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

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

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

[rashomon]

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

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

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

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

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by rashomon

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

Not enough said. That was never proven.

[Louisadelmar]

Are black fibers mentioned anywhere other than that interrogation?

[shill]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

They have in evidence a black blanket with semen stains on it.

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

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

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

[Athena]

Originally Posted by aussiesheila

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

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

[bullmoose]

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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

[LindaA]

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

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

[bullmoose]

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

[Louisadelmar]

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

[shill]

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by aussiesheila

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

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

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

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

[bullmoose]

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

[nuisanceposter]

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

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

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

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

[Louisadelmar]

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

[bullmoose]

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

Originally Posted by LindaA

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

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

[bullmoose]

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by LindaA

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

It is only logical that Lin Wood would have tried to squash whatever incriminating evidence was presented by the prosecution, and from what we know about Wood's MO, he is not a 'pick your battles' type, but resembles more an attack dog mauling a jogger when it comes to dealing with people who try to incriminate his client.

[LindaA]

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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

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

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

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

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

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

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums...anctuary2.html
1 VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF JOHN RAMSEY
2 August 29, 2000
3 MR. KANE: Okay. Mr. Ramsey,
4 good morning.
5 MR. BECKNER: Just before we get
6 in, I want to say we appreciate your
7 willingness to sit down with us and answer
8 questions. We appreciate the opportunity.

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

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums...anctuary2.html
1 VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF JOHN RAMSEY
2 August 29, 2000
3 MR. KANE: Okay. Mr. Ramsey,
4 good morning.
5 MR. BECKNER: Just before we get
6 in, I want to say we appreciate your
7 willingness to sit down with us and answer
8 questions. We appreciate the opportunity.

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

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

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

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

[shill]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums...anctuary2.html

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

Levin was acting on behalf of the United States. This doesn't sound very private to me, but pretty official.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

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

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

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

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

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

[Athena]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by shill

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

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

[Athena]

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

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

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


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

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

Think impeachment at trial.

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

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

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

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

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Miss Marple

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

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Ames

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

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Miss Marple

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

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

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