View Full Version : Dr. Lee on duct tape in Ramsey case
candy
11-04-2003, 02:52 AM
Very interesting comments by Dr. Henry Lee on duct tape tested in the Ramsey case on Larry King Live tonight:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/03/lkl.00.html
KURTIS: Dr. Lee, didn't you take a look at some tape in the JonBenet Ramsey case, reexamine it?
LEE: Yes. Yes, I did. Yes.
KURTIS: And there was nothing became of that.
LEE: Well, that's a two-inch tape and it's been used. It's not like the Laci Peterson case, which, as I say, I cannot comment too much on that.
paige
11-04-2003, 03:24 AM
is Dr. Lee implying that the tape that covered JonBenet's mouth had been used for something else before it was put on her?
If this murder was committed by an intruder/intruders., they didn't come very well equipped did they? They used Patsy's pad and pen to write the RN, and they bring a piece of "used" 2" duct tape (that happen to have fibers consistant with Patsy's jacket) to commit this crime?..................To quote the "Church Lady" from SNL......."Well isn't that special"
candy
11-04-2003, 03:49 AM
Good question Paige. I'm not sure. I thought he meant by "used", that it had been used on JB, but duct tape would have been "used" on Laci as well, I'm not sure.
Jayelles
11-04-2003, 06:00 AM
Duct tape is used for packaging. I have always thought that if the duct tape had come from some packaging, then it would have to have been taken from something like polythene to have maintained a degree of its stickiness. Most of my fabric suppliers fold the fabric into a bundle and stick it in a plastic bag, but one of them rollls the fabric up on a cardboard roll and then wraps it in polythene and then secures it with duct tape.
Nehemiah
11-04-2003, 09:27 AM
Sounds to me like Dr. Lee is saying that the tape on JB's mouth was previously used; the tape on Laci came freshly off the roll.
Duct tape is so versatile. In working with teens a few years ago, we divided up onto teams and they each duct taped one of their teammates to a wall. Pretty fun stuff. LOL
That's my take on it, too, but it's very hard to tell with Dr. Lee. He might have meant something like, "It was a two inch tape that was used in the JBR case, and another type used in the Laci case." Did anyone actually hear the broadcast?
One of the funnest things to do is to turn on closed caption while Dr. Lee is speaking. He drives most transcribers crazy, and they come up with some very funny stuff.
The duct tape in the JBR case was newly manufactured: this was determined by analysis of the fibers and the adhesive since the plant had mad changes in the manufacturing process but as is common in industry it had first changed the fibers and then after five weeks of no production problems it then changed the adhesive formula. The tape was manufactured at some point in time during this five weeks making it not impossible but highly unlikely that the tape had ever been used for something else, although it might have been 'carried' by being stuck to something.
Jayelles
11-04-2003, 11:30 AM
Where is the Twinn Doll factory?
candy
11-04-2003, 11:55 AM
A representitive from ShurTape, the type of duct tape used in the Ramsey case (and maybe also in the Peterson case) was on Greta last night:
Greta: Back now live from Modesto. Tonight, unconfirmed reports say duct tape found near Laci and Conner's bodies is similar to tape used to post missing posters when Laci first vanished. And that's not all. KTVU-TV reports Scott Peterson's fingerprint was found on the missing poster tape.
Joining us on the phone is the quality assurance manager for the manufacturer of a brand of duct tape called Duck Tape. Carter MacFarland's company is called SurTape Technologies. Also back with us is forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden.
Carter, if I gave you two pieces of duct tape, could you compare them and determine them to be from the same roll?
Carter McFarland, ShurTape: I could look at the two different types and determine if they had similar patterns between the two and the film and the cloth and the adhesive.
Greta: How unique is duct tape? I mean, if I handed you just a simple piece of duct tape, can you tell me whether or not it's duct tape, for instance, that your company manufactures?
Carter McFarland: Well, going through and looking at, actually, the film itself, looking at the color, the texture, the type of film it is and the layers of the film, as well as what the cloth is made of, if it's a woven or a knit cloth, and analyzing the cloth that's in the tape, as well as the adhesive, you can determine a particular manufacturer for a tape.
Greta: Carter, is duct tape unique, in the sense that the type of duct tape you manufacture, for instance, is unique from a duct tape that another manufacturer might make?
Carter McFarland: Yes, it would be. Different manufacturers have different technologies. They use different type of films, as well as different type of cloths, as well as the adhesives have some different characteristics also.
Greta: All right, Carter. If I, in terms of an entire roll of duct tape, are the sort of signature aspects of the duct tape ,are they consistent throughout the entire roll, so you could tell whether or not a piece of tape came from a particular roll?
Carter McFarland: Yes, there would be some similarities that would be throughout that roll.
Greta: But how do you know that it's not just simply, if I gave you two pieces of tape, how do you know if it came from one roll or it simply came from two different rolls manufactured by your company?
Carter McFarland: You really would have to take the two samples and analyze them and, you know, look for the similarities between the two. It's difficult to tell without actually looking at the samples themselves.
Greta: But if you do have the samples, can you do it with a reasonable level of certainty?
Carter McFarland: With a reasonable level of certainty, yes.
Greta: Can you give me odds?
Carter McFarland: It would be difficult for me to, you know, give you a percentage.
Greta: Dr. Baden, what do you make of, you've done a lot of forensic study of the duct tape, you know, the fact that if you got two pieces, one around Laci and Conner and one on a poster. Don't know if they're the same.
Dr. Baden: I think, Greta, what we're seeing is the difference between science and the criminal justice system, with the hair, as well as with the duct tape. As Geoffrey said, when you put a case into court, as you've said, you build a case with many different pieces of evidence, none of which may be 100 percent specific. The mitochondrial dna isn't 100 percent specific in the hair, but taken together with the history, with the circumstances, with the Amber Frey tapes, with the duct tape, which may not be 100 percent, but if the duct tape matches, if the hair matches, if all the circumstances match, then it's unlikely that it's somebody else's hair in the boat. How it got there is something else, but I think that
Greta: All right.
Dr. Baden: It sounds like there, it will be important evidence, the duct tape.
Greta: All right. Carter, thank you. And now back to our expert panel.
All right, let me go to you, Bernie. I mean, the thing that sort of, that concerns me about the tape is that, you know, even as Dr. Baden says, as you put these little pieces together, you know, it may build a case against someone, but at some point, if you put really unreliable pieces together, it would be unfair to an accused.
Bernie Grimm: It would be unfair. And listening to Mr. MacFarland, you did a great job. It reminds me of the heydays, Greta, back in the '60s or '70s, whenever you were practicing, where you used to just annihilate experts.
Greta: The '80s, thank you, Bernie! Bernie, '80s...
Bernie Grimm: All right. I was just trying to get back at you for kicking me off the show on Friday. But at any rate, I saw you annihilate experts, and Mr. MacFarland, you were very nice to him, but all he's essentially said is if this tape is, for example, from 3M, and I'm not saying it's from 3M, essentially, I can say it's 3M tape, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, I can't say it is on this same roll. You gave him 17 different ways to Sunday to get it out, but he couldn't.
What Dr. Baden would talk about, I think, that's more important, is that adhesive tape, and especially duct tape, is very, very durable, even if it's in the water for the longest period of time.
Dr. Baden: Yes.
Carter McFarland: It could have hair on it. It could have fingerprints on it. But here's the thing that connects it all. And you talked about the first question to me was, Let's say the evidence is unreliable. Geoff's point, when we started the show, is so riveting, that they will despise Scott Peterson at the end of this trial so much, they almost will virtually ignore the evidence, whether it's good or bad, and perhaps convict him, whether he's innocent or not, is the frightening thing.
Greta: Gloria, what do you think of this duct tape?
Gloria Allred: Well, I mean, I think if, as and when it's introduced as evidence, and the reports are that it's not expected to be introduced at the preliminary hearing. But if it is, it'll be yet just another piece of evidence, and the jury will weigh its value, what weight it should give to that piece of evidence.
Greta: But even before it gets there...
Gloria Allred: And it won't be the only,I don't agree that there's going to be any smoking gun bombshell from...
Greta: But wait a second. Wait a second, Gloria. Even before it gets to the jury, the judge has to make a determination that it doesn't have some sort of wild prejudicial impact that outweighs whatever value it has to prove something. And simply the fact you have duct tape, there's lots of duct tape in this world. You know, there's, the judge may conclude that the jury would wildly connect this and that it's unreasonable.
Gloria Allred: I don't think that this is the kind of evidence that the judge would make a determination is more prejudicial than probative, which is the standard.
Greta: Geoff?
Geoffrey Fieger: I suspect that Bernie's wife tapes him up every night when he goes home.
Carter McFarland: Oh, Gee!
Geoffrey Fieger: But beyond that, I think this is the type of evidence, based on what I've just heard, that a judge might very well exclude, if the attempt was being made to suggest that this tape is the same as another tape, without some really compelling scientific basis. But let's remember, for instance, that it wasn't too long ago, it was within our careers, that people were convicted based upon their blood type. For instance, if blood type O was found at the scene and the alleged perpetrator had blood type O, even though 50 million other people have it, or 2 billion, that evidence was allowed, and the jury was allowed to consider whether the accused was the perpetrator.
Nehemiah
11-04-2003, 12:00 PM
Jayelles, their website has this address listed, although I don't know if this is actually where the dolls are made:
"Write us at:
My Twinn
P.O. Box 5700
Denver, CO 80217"
Toth, if the tape were "carried" by something, do you think that is why fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket were found on it? Couldn't resist saying that to you.
Originally posted by Nehemiah
Toth, if the tape were "carried" by something, do you think that is why fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket were found on it? I don't think Patsy Ramsey saw any particular need to put duct tape on her clothing. What about the fibers that are found only in the vicinity of the crime and nowhere else in the house? Were those from the duct tape too?
Sabrina
11-04-2003, 01:14 PM
How do you suppose Patsy's fibers get on the duct tape Toth? Were they flying around the Ramsey home and just happened to land on the duct tape? Or maybe they were on the floor next to the body and attached themselves to the tape when John pulled it off?
ajt400
11-04-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Sabrina
How do you suppose Patsy's fibers get on the duct tape Toth? Were they flying around the Ramsey home and just happened to land on the duct tape? Or maybe they were on the floor next to the body and attached themselves to the tape when John pulled it off?
Weel, fibers have been known to fly through the air. How else would they get transmitted?
TLynn
11-04-2003, 02:17 PM
Candy, I'm so glad you posted Dr. Lee's comment. I heard it last night. I knew it had been reported as "used" in the past - but now, it's official.
The duct tape on JonBenet was 2" and USED.
So what if it was recently manufactured - it had been used prior to being placed over JonBenet's mouth. And, reportedly, it was after she was dead.
No one can tell me an intruder brought used tape into the house. The roll easily could've been used up from whatever it was bought for prior; hence, a used piece.
How horrible it must've been, putting a used piece of duct tape over your dead daughter's mouth in creating a crime scene.
Jayelles
11-04-2003, 02:23 PM
2" of of tape isn't very long. Surely if the perp had the whole roll he'd use a bit more than that? Think, if you were cutting a piece of tape to put over someone's mouth - wouldn't you make it extend a bit on either side?
I've never done this BTW (been tempted a few times....:-)) but II think of films where a victim has been gagged like this and the gag usually goes across to the cheeks.
Shylock
11-04-2003, 02:32 PM
Where are the archives when you need them?
I thought there was a thin line of green paint on JB's face which probably came off the edge of the tape.
That would locate the tape in the paint tote prior to the crime.
Anyone else remember the green paint line?
How ironic that fibers from the very jacket Patsy had worn to the Whites' on Christmas and was also wearing when LE arrived at the Ramseys' house the next day--and only those fibers--made their way to the basement and stuck themselves to the strip of tape taken from JonBenet's mouth.
How doubly ironic that at least one of those migrating fibers tangled itself in the knot on the neck cord.
First of all, the roll could hardly have been 'used up'. It was new and what on earth would the Ramseys have done to entirely consume this roll of tape that you insist they purchased?
Duct tape is not used for wrapping gifts. Duct tape is not used for mending clothes.
Also, as to this post-mortem affixing of the tape, if one of the progns of the stun gun was on the tape, I see no reason to think the tape was applied only post-mortem. Oh, yeah,, thats right: I forgot: No stun gun. Those marks are from two well-trained mosquitoes who also spirited away the roll of duct tape.
ajt400
11-04-2003, 02:49 PM
Maybe from a vampire, that is also a possibility, right? If it was not a stun-gun, then what the hell was it????
Shylock
11-04-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Toth
Also, as to this post-mortem affixing of the tape, if one of the progns of the stun gun was on the tape, I see no reason to think the tape was applied only post-mortem. There was NO stun gun prong on the tape--that story has never been anything but PURE B.S. from the swamp in an effort to explain why there is only ONE mark on her face that the RST wants people to believe was created by Lou Smit's wet dream stun gun.
The idiots who started that stupid story weren't smart enough to figure out that if the tape was such a great insulator that it kept the prong from leaving a mark, it also would have kept the stun gun from working properly and leaving any mark with the OTHER prong....DUH! (I know, I know...nobody has ever accused the RST of being intelligent...LOL)
And the tape was nothing but pure post-mortem staging. That little bit of tape couldn't have held ANY child's mouth shut. That's been proven over and over again.
Barbara
11-04-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
Maybe from a vampire, that is also a possibility, right? If it was not a stun-gun, then what the hell was it????
I'll go through this once again. You may already have seen me post this as you are awfully familiar AJT, but in case you haven't, I'll explain this again:
Just because WE (and we are not physicians, nor have we seen the body in person), cannot figure out what those marks ARE, doesn't mean that they HAVE to be stun gun marks.
This is Logic 101 stuff.
Because Dr. Doberson appears fairly certain that they are stun gun marks, doesn't make it so. After all, that's what he was given to work with: a photo and a suggestion
I'm still waiting for Toth's list of the "many" who believe it was a stun gun.
Even Lou Smit backed off that one.
So trained mosquitos and vampires are in the same possibility zone as a stun gun.
TLynn
11-04-2003, 03:20 PM
Only the Ramseys know how they used up the duct tape. I'm sure they had a purpose for it - or they wouldn't have purchased it (possibly from the receipt that matches from the hardware store).
Where'd the idea of a stun gun mark being on the tape come from....?! Huh?! Huh?!
Baloney -
Jayelles
11-04-2003, 03:22 PM
Fibres on the sticky side of the duct tape could have gotten there by innocent transfer. Patsy was in close contact with JonBenet the entire day and she got her dressed for bed. If JonBenet hugged her mother at any point, some fibres could have stuck to her mouth and henceforth to the duct tape.
The fibres on the cord knot are harder to justify.
TLynn
11-04-2003, 03:24 PM
Do NOT let this thread get into the spin of a stun gun - when, in fact, the duct tape is the issue - AND the duct tape points directly to the Ramseys.
There's no wiggling out of this one.
Jayelles, even if Patsy's jacket fibers were innocently transferred to JonBenet's mouth that day, I can't imagine the fibers remaining on JonBenet's mouth after she ate the pineapple.
TLynn
11-04-2003, 03:29 PM
The transfer of Patsy's fiber to the duct tape could've come from the blanket (when the tape was placed on it).
The blanket came from the downstairs dryer. If Patsy removed the blanket from the dryer; there you have the possible transfer.
Then, again, we all know Patsy claims Priscilla owned the same jacket.
Were fibers from the blanket also found on the tape? If the jacket fibers came from the blanket, I would think that blanket fibers would have also been on the tape.
Jayelles
11-04-2003, 03:44 PM
Ivy:-
Jayelles, even if Patsy's jacket fibers were innocently transferred to JonBenet's mouth that day, I can't imagine the fibers remaining on JonBenet's mouth after she ate the pineapple.
Well that depends on whether the Ramseys are lying about the events that night. If JonBenet was awake and when she got home, she could easily have snuck a chunk of pineapple without her parents' knowledge before going upstairs to bed. She could then have hugged her mother before going to sleep.
Britt
11-04-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Ivy
...and only those fibers--made their way to the basement and stuck themselves to the strip of tape taken from JonBenet's mouth.
How doubly ironic that at least one of those migrating fibers tangled itself in the knot on the neck cord.
And they leapt into the paint tote as well. Energetic little fibers, weren't they, considering Patsy didn't even go to the basement.
ajt400
11-04-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Barbara
I'll go through this once again. You may already have seen me post this as you are awfully familiar AJT, but in case you haven't, I'll explain this again:
Just because WE (and we are not physicians, nor have we seen the body in person), cannot figure out what those marks ARE, doesn't mean that they HAVE to be stun gun marks.
This is Logic 101 stuff.
Because Dr. Doberson appears fairly certain that they are stun gun marks, doesn't make it so. After all, that's what he was given to work with: a photo and a suggestion
I'm still waiting for Toth's list of the "many" who believe it was a stun gun.
Even Lou Smit backed off that one.
So trained mosquitos and vampires are in the same possibility zone as a stun gun.
With all do respect Barbara, I don't kow how you could know me. Maybe I just have some of the same ideas as someone you know. That is neither here nor there, anyway
I understand that, we, as non-physicians, cannot deiscern these marks, but what about the people that can?
It seems that if there are strange marks on the body, the BPD would want to be able to say what they are, correct?
If not stun-guns, then what. (Bear in mind, I don't mean, 'If it's ot a stun-gun--and it HAS to be a stun-gun,") Everyone is quick to say "It's not a stun-gun," okay so what is it? It's not a normal abrasion, maybe it has something to do w/the garrote, who knows?
gretchen
11-04-2003, 05:16 PM
About the duct tape......I remember reading somewhere that no tongue print was on the tape, leading investigators to concur the tape was put on JonBenet's mouth after the murder. If her tongue print was on the tape it would have meant that JB was alive at the time. In other words, the tape was just staging.
ajt400
11-04-2003, 05:20 PM
P.S. Barbara, there is no mystery to me, I am who I am. I don't know why you question that. Why would I hide who I am anyway? This is just a forum!!!
Cherokee
11-04-2003, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Jayelles
2" of of tape isn't very long. Surely if the perp had the whole roll he'd use a bit more than that? Think, if you were cutting a piece of tape to put over someone's mouth - wouldn't you make it extend a bit on either side?
Absolutely.
For the sake of argument, take a kicking and screaming and wiggling six-year-old (remember, Nedra said JBR would not have gotten up willingly from her bed) and with their head moving, try to put a 2 inch piece of used tape (as per Dr. Lee) across their mouths, AND MAKE IT STAY THERE.
Can't be done. And it especially can't be done without saliva or teeth marks or tongue marks not being on the sticky side of the tape over the victim's mouth.
The tape didn't not have to come from a huge roll, or a new roll or ANY roll.
It could have been used to wrap paintbrushes together to store in the tote. It could have come from My Twinn doll packaging. It could have come from any number of places.
The reason?
JBR was already dead and not struggling, therefore, a nice long piece of sturdy new tape was not necessary. All that was needed was just a little bit of tape to put over JBR's motionless mouth in order to present the staging of a "bound and gagged" victim.
And while I'm at it ... Toth, if you're going to make statements like "the tape was new" then you'd better back it up with document sources. You don't know that any more than you know what movies the Ramseys watched.
Dr. Lee, who has seen the evidence, just said the tape was USED. (Big thanks to Candy for providing that information.) Steve Thomas alluded to the same thing in his book when he said the tape could have come from the back of a painting or art project.
Those are sources. Now let's see yours.
My opinion.
ajt400
11-04-2003, 08:18 PM
It couldn't be done--unless you had something, like, say a stun-gun, to subdue her.
Cherokee
11-04-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
It couldn't be done--unless you had something, like, say a stun-gun, to subdue her.
Even then, there would still have been saliva on the sticky side of the tape. She would still have been alive and breathing with all normal body functions even IF she was subdued.
There is no saliva, no marks.
And there was no stun gun. Myth, myth and more myth.
Patsy wrote the ransom note. John helped with the staging. Burke MAY have been involved. There was no intruder, and the crime scene was bungled by investigators. The family was non-cooperative from the word go.
No far-fetched scenario fits all of the available evidence. The family was involved. Spin it any way you want, but it doesn't change the truth.
My opinion.
SisterSocks
11-04-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by TLynn
Do NOT let this thread get into the spin of a stun gun - when, in fact, the duct tape is the issue - AND the duct tape points directly to the Ramseys.
There's no wiggling out of this one.
Sure everything goes back to the Ramsey's it was there house .
An intruder planned this as a hate crime for John ?
I doubt it Tlynn,but a stun gun was used. Duct tape was used
You can't know for sure the Rams did the deed .:nono:
Everyones got duct tape .
Someone in Boudler used a stun gun on JB.
Nehemiah
11-04-2003, 08:46 PM
"Duct tape is not used for wrapping gifts. Duct tape is not used for mending clothes."
I thought perhaps Dr. Lee meant the tape was 2" wide rather than long.
Toth, maybe you haven't read the book that chronicles all the uses for duct tape? I have used it to mend a hem until I could repair it; sometimes females in pageants use it to lift their breasts and show cleavage. Lots of uses there.
Sabrina
11-04-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by ajt400
With all do respect Barbara, I don't kow how you could know me. Maybe I just have some of the same ideas as someone you know. That is neither here nor there, anyway
I understand that, we, as non-physicians, cannot deiscern these marks, but what about the people that can?
It seems that if there are strange marks on the body, the BPD would want to be able to say what they are, correct?
If not stun-guns, then what. (Bear in mind, I don't mean, 'If it's ot a stun-gun--and it HAS to be a stun-gun,") Everyone is quick to say "It's not a stun-gun," okay so what is it? It's not a normal abrasion, maybe it has something to do w/the garrote, who knows?
Alt-- Most of the medical doctors I've heard dispell the marks as stun gun marks. Dr. Baden and Dr. Spitz are two which come to mind that have been on many tv shows stating so. Dr. Spitz even went so far as to say something like it could have been an abrasion from pressing against a snap or button. He said one must look at the photo under a microscope. Taking a digital photo and using computer software is not the same as a scientific microscope. The physician who ACTUALLY saw the marks said they were abrasions. Stun guns leave burns.
And yes, what Gretchen says is true. There was no toungue imprint which means the tape was probably put over her mouth afterwards.
Yep, sometimes those fibers just fly all over the place --just to incriminate the Ramseys.
We have no proof Priscilla owned the same jacket, just Patsy saying she owned a "similar" one. This is the same Patsy who does not know what shoes her son owns.
Even Dobersen himself backed down a little and admitted that to find out what the marks are, they would have to be examined firsthand. He said that identifying the marks was not possible just by looking at photos. A stun gun would produce electrical burns on the skin, and those tissue changes would be clearly recognizable under a microscope.
tipper
11-04-2003, 10:09 PM
But Doberson also said he'd be willing to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that they were from a stun gun.
Britt
11-04-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Ivy
Even Dobersen himself backed down a little and admitted that to find out what the marks are, they would have to be examined firsthand. He said that identifying the marks was not possible just by looking at photos.
Exactly right, Ivy. Doberson is useless as an advocate of the stun gun theory.
Sabrina, good post.
tipper
11-05-2003, 12:56 AM
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes71-80.htm
Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A. )
ajt400
11-05-2003, 01:24 AM
So why doesn't anyone investigate this? Is that not strange to anyone else? If it is a butoon, could that not be but one more thing to hang the person in the courtroom?
I keep thinking about the piece of black sheet metal that was taken into evidence. Could the black duct tape have been on the sheet metal for some reason?
I, too, took the 2 inch measurement to refer to width. A 2 inch length of duct tape is awfully small to use for anything, much less gagging a child.
ajt400
11-05-2003, 01:44 AM
I know this isn't accurate, but I have a small head for a 23 yr old. (LOL) I just made a 2 inch space with my hand and covered my mouth, and it worked. (With not a lot of cheek left over--so what about in a child?) If you could put it on before she is awakened or startled, you could easily get it on...
tipper
11-05-2003, 01:47 AM
I can't find the picture on line now I think on one of the autopsy photographs you can see where the tape was. As I recall it extended about an inch beyond her mouth.
Shylock
11-05-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by tipper
But Doberson also said he'd be willing to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that they were from a stun gun.
"the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue. "You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said.
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/13-1.html
Looks like the only thing Doberson is an expert on, is how to impeach his own testimony...LOL
ajt400
11-05-2003, 11:13 AM
But can one not see burn marks from a photo alone? Can't you tell the skin is singed?
I think a good forensic photo can be sufficient but that a microscopic examination of the cellular structure of the tissues is the 'gold standard'.
A wife who comes home and finds another woman in bed with her husband has definitive evidence but if she just smells that woman's perfume and finds the panties she left behind, the wife won't spend much time saying she needs the 'gold standard'.
Microscopic examination of tissues show the iron particles all lined up and forms the basis for the conclusion of electricity locally applied, but the forensic-quality photograph of the skin and the appearance of the marks is sufficient to form a valid conclusion too. It might be nice to have the confirmatory test, but I don't see it as necessary.
Cherokee
11-05-2003, 01:04 PM
Ah, Toth -
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
(some things never change)
My opinion.
Cherokee
11-05-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Shylock
"the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue. "You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said.
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/13-1.html
Looks like the only thing Doberson is an expert on, is how to impeach his own testimony...LOL
Doberson: "YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL FROM A PHOTO."
Oh, that is priceless. Thank you, Shylock, for that little quote.
Doberson: "I really can't tell from a photo, but dog gone it, I'll get up in court and say you can, well sort of, I mean, well I thought I could, I don't know, well yeah, it could be stun gun, or I don't know, but I want it to be a stun gun so that's kind of what I thought, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL FROM A PHOTO."
My opinion.
tipper
11-05-2003, 01:15 PM
From Shylock's link:
"... Doberson said Boulder detectives visited him April 25 to ask about a 2-year-old Arapahoe County case in which the coroner exhumed the body of Gerald Boggs eight months after burial and found evidence of electrical shock in the man's skin tissue.
"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Doberson recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility. But there were a lot of things they could do to narrow down the possibilities of what it could be."
Doberson told Boulder investigators to do what The New Yorker reports they eventually did - measure the distance between the wounds and compare that to stun guns.
But with fired projectiles instead of fixed prongs, does the measurement theory hold up for a Taser-type weapon?
"Not unless the distances between the two firing prongs are set so they would always hit the body the same distance apart," Doberson said.
Besides, he added, the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue.
"You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said.
Although Schiller's piece makes Hunter seem ready to exhume JonBenet's body, Laurion said his willingness to do so was overstated and hinges on the Boulder police.
"Our office is not advocating the exhumation of the body," Laurion said. "What Hunter makes clear is the police say that in their search for the truth, (if) they feel the need exhumation of the body, he would support their desire for this.
"It's very much their call."
The BPD knew very well if they requested that JonBenet's body be exhumed, it would go against the Ramseys' wishes, and it would make LE look bad in the public's eyes. The Ramseys like to paint themselves as victims of LE, so why would LE want to do anything that would make themselves look cruel and uncaring? Besides, even if it was proved that a stun gun made the marks on JonBenet, it wouldn't indicate if a Ramsey (not to mention which Ramsey), or if an intruder stunned her.
ajt400
11-05-2003, 01:50 PM
Thanks for the info....does anyone else think that this is a signifigant link/clue to the murder? Whatever it was it had to be put there after or during her death...if you could connect whatever it is to where it came from---it might be important.
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
..........Perhaps. I don't know what post you are talking about.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
...............Why? Its well known it was new. I even recall posting somewhere about the fibers being changed and the adhesive forumulation being changed, but not the product number or bar code.
(some things never change)
............such as your asking me to post a fact that is easily verifiable at the Forum of Reason?
The tape was manufactured in NC and plant officials confirmed that a change in the industrial processes give a fairly narrow five week window of manufacturing to that particular roll of tape, however since barcodes and product numbers were not changed there is no way to tell from invoices or shipping records whether tape sent to any particular store was 'old tape' 'interim tape' or 'new tape'.
The only thing they could do is say that it had the change in one but not the other, therefore the tape was manufactured in the approximately five week interval between the fiber change and the adhesive chemistry change.
On edit: Note: it is fairly common in industry to make changes that are at separate times, so all kinks have been worked out of the process and any problems are attributable to just one change.
why_nutt
11-05-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Toth
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
..........Perhaps. I don't know what post you are talking about.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
...............Why? Its well known it was new. I even recall posting somewhere about the fibers being changed and the adhesive forumulation being changed, but not the product number or bar code.
In the context of this discussion, "new" does not refer to the recent nature of the tape's manufacture, but to the amount of time the tape had been off its source roll before it was placed on JonBenet's mouth. Dr. Lee's words are being taken as saying that, according to his knowledge (knowledge gained because we do know he went to Boulder at Hunter's request and he did directly examine evidence), the tape was not fresh off the roll when placed. Dr. Lee is saying the tape was put on something else, and then taken off of that item and put on JonBenet's mouth. If, for example, the tape segment had been in the house on December 15th and was attached to the back of a picture, on December 26th forensic examination would be able to reveal it to have lost some of the volume of adhesive it should have if it had been fresh off the roll.
I think this may be what Lee is referring to, and it makes sense when you think about it. Adhesive has X thickness upon being layered onto the fabric backing. If the tape should have X thickness when put on one object, and removing the tape creates a thickness of X - Y, then a tape which has more adhesive lost than can be accounted for via X - Y must lead one to believe that the adhesive lost thickness via X - Y - Z.
Cherokee
11-05-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Toth
I see you've posted after my request for sources regarding your statement that the tape on JBR's mouth was NEW.
..........Perhaps. I don't know what post you are talking about.
Oh, somehow you missed it? Okay then, I counted up from your post on the forensic photo, and it's 16 posts before that one. I asked for your source that the tape was NEW.
So ... we're waiting for that source ... and waiting ... and still waiting ...
...............Why? Its well known it was new. I even recall posting somewhere about the fibers being changed and the adhesive forumulation being changed, but not the product number or bar code.
That's IT? That's your SOURCE? That it's "WELL KNOWN"?
What kind of a source is that? That's no source at all.
It's also "well known" that drinking coffee turns your toes black, and that if you keep crossing your eyes, they will stick.
I'm talking about identifiable legitimate sources. LE, transcripts, documents.
And guess what. You won't find a source for "the tape was new," as in NEVER BEEN OFF THE ROLL UNTIL IT WAS PUT ON JBR'S MOUTH, in any verifiable sources.
(some things never change)
............such as your asking me to post a fact that is easily verifiable at the Forum of Reason?
No, Toth, you know what I mean. Some things never change as in you never give sources for your statements regarding evidence. The Forum of Reason? Don't make me laugh ... or lose my lunch.
The tape was manufactured in NC and plant officials confirmed that a change in the industrial processes give a fairly narrow five week window of manufacturing to that particular roll of tape, however since barcodes and product numbers were not changed there is no way to tell from invoices or shipping records whether tape sent to any particular store was 'old tape' 'interim tape' or 'new tape'.
Once again, no one here is asking if the tape on JBR's mouth was "old tape" "interim tape" or "new tape" FROM THE MANUFACTURER.
Of course it was new AT ONE TIME. It would have been new when it first reached the Ramsey house. But IT HAD BEEN USED ON SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE IT WAS PLACED ON JBR'S MOUTH!
That is the point.
It was USED, as in it did not come FRESH off a roll of tape to be placed on JBR's mouth. It had been on something previously.
My opinion.
Our eight asterisk Friend of Truth, Justice and The American Way spoke to the plant officials who informed her that the BPD officers who had visited said the company was not to talk about the tape.
By "new" I do not mean 'taken off the roll and immediately placed on JonBenet' although I do think that is what happened. By "new tape" I mean "recently manufactured and therefore unlikely to have been used for any other purpose on a prior occasion".
I have no information on how long it would normally take a roll of duct tape to work its way through the distribution chain but I have always been suspicious of an item that was manufactured so recently had found its way to Colorad so promptly. Its not like its gift wrapping tape or anything. Its not.
Jayelles
11-05-2003, 04:06 PM
We have no proof Priscilla owned the same jacket, just Patsy saying she owned a "similar" one. This is the same Patsy who does not know what shoes her son owns.
This is odd to me. Women tend to take note if another woman has an IDENTICAL outfit. Women don't like to find themselves wearing the same outfit as a friend.
If the jackets were the same, I think Patsy would have known for sure. I think there would have been some discussion about it - even in fun.
Sabrina
11-05-2003, 10:27 PM
Yeah, I woould have guessed Patsy to say something like her jacket came from Nordstroms but Priscilla's was from KMart....LOL
tipper
11-06-2003, 08:45 PM
Found this re the jacket:
9 Q. I would like you to give us a
10 little background on that coat, and again I
11 am not going to hold you to days of the
12 week, but do you recall, first of all, where
13 you purchased it?
14 A. Well, Priscilla had had one like
15 it that I admired. And she told me, I
16 believe she told me she got hers at EMS.
17 So I went there to look. And they didn't
18 have one or I didn't want to get one exactly
19 like hers. So I think I got that one at
20 Marshals in Boulder.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.