1246 users online (288 members and 958 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015

    RDI fiber evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The fingers of a 6-year old girl are too short to reach her own hymen. Masturbation in girls that young, while not unheard of, is usually an indication of sexual abuse or being sexually stimulated somehow.

    As far as JR's black Israeli shirt- whenever forensic fiber evidence is considered, fibers are always classified as "consistent with" fibers from something else (i.e a source), as in carpeting, car interior, etc.
    This is for the very reason that unless something is the ONLY one in existence,
    fibers cannot be said to have come ONLY from that article. However, fiber evidence is often used in criminal cases, and is often the determining factor in guilt, as in fibers from the trunk of a car being found on a body, etc. when it is unlikely that they could have come from any other source. For example- fibers found on a body matching the trunk of a car in which that body was found when the car belongs to someone in possession of the deceased's credit cards, jewelry, clothing, etc. indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knows how that body got in the trunk of their car, even if they were not the actual killer. The fibers in that case indicate that the body was in THAT particular car and not another car of similar make and model.
    In this case, you have to consider that it would be very unlikely for any intruder, especially a SFF, to have left fibers consistent with BOTH JR's shirt that he wore THAT DAY (in the panty crotch) AND PR's fleece jacket that she wore THAT DAY (in the garrote knot and tape).
    Do we know those fibers were deposited as a direct result of the commission of a crime? Since JB panties were dried in a dryer, and JR's shirt may have been dried in the same dryer fiber from one will deposit on the other. Can we rule out that when PR hugged JB with her red-fiber jacket there was a transfer of red fiber to JB's person, which then transferred to garrote knot and tape?


    First, how many individual fibers are we talking about? 1? 20? 300? Second, how "determinative" is fiber analysis? Sure we can say black fibers and red fibers were found, and they are "consistent" with these articles of clothing but they can be consistent with anything? Were any other fibers found, including unidentified? How many fibers were found in the vicinity of JB and/or articles of interest? How do you know that the fibers were not deposited at an earlier point in time, or that JB did not touch these articles of clothing and then transferred them to her panties? Do you know they did not wear that an an earlier time, and transferred to her clothing, and then transferred to those items of clothing? Is it possible LE lied to R's in order to get them to confess as LE did to Susan Smith?

    Can we rule out that JR and PR fibers were in the environment where the perp committed the crime, say JB's bedroom and clothing, and then transferred to the perp, then transferred to the said objects?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,953
    "Is it possible LE lied to R's in order to get them to confess as LE did to Susan Smith?
    "

    NO.Cops can lie,prosecutors CAN'T.
    reread the interviews.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,953
    http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm


    THE PAINT TRAY - Photographs show the paint tray was located outside the door to the wine cellar in which JonBenet's body was found, and thus well removed from the blanket that creates the possible contamination problem with the fibers on the duct tape. The fibers were put in the paint tray sometime before or during the time a brush in the tray was used to tighten the cord around JonBenet's neck, because Patsy didn't have access to the tray thereafter. Patsy told prosecutors she had never worn the red sweater-jacket while painting. So there is no readily apparent explanation for how the fibers could have gotten there in a manner that doesn't implicate Patsy in the use of the brush in the paint tray around the time of her daughter's death.

    THE LIGATURE - This was an instrument fashioned for the apparent purpose of controlling JonBenet (it was like a collar and leash used on a dog), strangling her, or "staging" the crime scene to make it look like there had been an intruder. In any case, the only way fibers from ANY type of Patsy's clothing could make their way innocently onto this instrument would be if the fibers attached themselves to the paint brush used to make the ligature at some prior time, when it was simply a paint brush. Thus an innocent explanation runs into the same problems as does the explanation of how the fibers from Patsy's sweater/jacket came to be in the paint tray (why THAT piece of clothing when Patsy never wore it while painting?), and it runs into the additional problems created by the switch from the innocent use of a paint brush to the felonious use of the ligature. Patsy told investigators there were no broken brushes in her paint tray prior to the night JonBenet was killed. So the brush in question was broken the night JonBenet died by someone trying to control or kill her, or stage the crime scene.

    THE PANTIES - John Ramsey told investigator Smit in his 1998 interview that while he had carried a sleeping JonBenet to bed after the family returned from their Christmas Day outing, he did not undress her. Patsy did. Patsy confirmed that. There is, therefore, no obvious way to explain why fibers from the type of shirt John was wearing when he says he put her to bed were found in her underpants and "crotch area."

    -------------

    Wood did, however, tell cable talk-show host Larry King last fall that he "knows for a fact" that black fibers were not found in JonBenet's underwear (he didn't say how he knows this). And he said "there's any one of many innocent explanations for why the fibers (found in the paint tray, on the brush, and in the ligature) might be consistent with something Patsy was wearing." He offered only one such explanation: that Patsy had put JonBenet to bed the previous night. But that couldn't account for the fibers in the paint tray, and they couldn't account for the fibers on the brush used in the ligature and "tied into" the ligature, unless the fibers somehow transferred from Patsy's sweater to JonBenet's clothing and then to the brush and "tied into" the ligature.

    Patsy also tried to provide an innocent explanation for the fibers when she spoke to CBS' "48 Hours." She said she had hugged her daughter's body after John discovered it in the basement of their home and brought it upstairs. Fibers from the sweater she was wearing at the time could have transferred to JonBenet's clothing, she suggested.

    But the fibers weren't found on JonBenet's clothing. They were found, among other places, in the paint tray, which was in the basement when Patsy hugged her daughter's body upstairs.











    Why provide "innocent' explanations for something that doesn't even exist??
    By doing it all they did was confirming the EXISTENCE of the fibers.


    And JR and his lawyer were smart enough to DENY the ones coming from HIS shirt.I wonder WHY.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    Do we know those fibers were deposited as a direct result of the commission of a crime?
    We have good reason to think that.

    Since JB panties were dried in a dryer, and JR's shirt may have been dried in the same dryer fiber from one will deposit on the other.
    I doubt it. I think a shirt like that would be dry-cleaned.

    Can we rule out that when PR hugged JB with her red-fiber jacket there was a transfer of red fiber to JB's person, which then transferred to garrote knot and tape?
    PR herself seems to have ruled that one out. Her story was that the fibers got there when she threw herself on JB's body. Trouble is, according to no less than the Rs' own book, JB's body was already covered up. Whoops!

    First, how many individual fibers are we talking about? 1? 20? 300? Second, how "determinative" is fiber analysis? Sure we can say black fibers and red fibers were found, and they are "consistent" with these articles of clothing but they can be consistent with anything?
    I can't say how many exactly. As for being determinative, fiber evidence is generally accepted as being substantial. Ask David Westerfield and Wayne Williams if you don't believe me. As for being consistent with anything, it doesn't work that way. Not all fabric is made the same way. What looks like a red fiber to the naked eye may have white woven into it to make it lighter, or black to make it darker. Not to mention the chemical treatment or composition.

    Were any other fibers found, including unidentified?
    A few. But no idea as to when they were left.

    How many fibers were found in the vicinity of JB and/or articles of interest?
    Quite a few, the way I heard it.

    How do you know that the fibers were not deposited at an earlier point in time, or that JB did not touch these articles of clothing and then transferred them to her panties?
    That's possible. But then, you have to take into account the conflicting and defensive nature of the Rs' responses to these questions. That makes it more interesting.

    Do you know they did not wear that an an earlier time, and transferred to her clothing, and then transferred to those items of clothing?
    PR said she never wore those clothes in the basement.

    Is it possible LE lied to R's in order to get them to confess as LE did to Susan Smith?
    I figured you'd ask that. According to Colorado Law, any statement of falsehood made by prosecutors is subject to penalty which includes being disbarred.

    Can we rule out that JR and PR fibers were in the environment where the perp committed the crime, say JB's bedroom and clothing, and then transferred to the perp, then transferred to the said objects?
    A few of the important objects weren't in JB's room, though.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    The panties were not dried in a dryer. Nor had they been laundered. They were a BRAND-NEW pair of size 12 panties taken from a package that Patsy had bought at Bloomingdale's in November during a pre-Christmas trip to New York City. Patsy admitted buying them as a gift for her niece Jenny- but she never got the chance to mail them off before Christmas, so they were still at the house waiting to be sent. Patsy also admitted to police that the panties found on JB were the ones she bought for her niece. She said the remaining set (there were 7 pairs in the set, each with a different day of the week on the waistband) were in JB's drawers, but LE could not find them. 5 YEARS LATER, the R sent the remaining set to LE.
    If JR's shirt fibers were found in the panties JB was wearing, they did not get there from being washed or dried with the shirt, which was a wool shirt anyway, and would have been dry cleaned, not laundered.
    The fiber evidence, iIMHO, links the parents to the crime scene. The shirt fibers could have only gotten there if JR was handling the panties, and involved in wiping her thighs and pubic area (which was noted at autopsy). Patsy's fibers could only have gotten on the sticky side of the mouth tape and entwined in the garrote if she was the one either handling the cord or actually tying the knot.

    By the way, PR was caught in a lie about the panties anyway. She told LE that although she had bought the set for her niece, JB wanted them so she put them in JB panty drawer. She said she didn't recall whether she bought one or two sets. Now- this was only a few WEEKS before the murder of her child. Believe me, you'd remember if it was one of the last Christmas gifts you bought your little girl. How does that explain why none of them were there? Or the fact that 5 years later she found them still brand-new and set them to LE?
    The truth is that those panties were in one of the wrapped gift boxes LE found in the basement. The boxes had been partially unwrapped, obviously to look for a fresh pair while redressing JB after the murder. Though LE described them as "partially wrapped", they were actually partially UNwrapped. I mean, who partially wraps a box? You either wrap it or not. It takes, like, 2 minutes? BUT you can easily see how a wrapped box can be partially UNwrapped, and then the box peeked into to see what's inside.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    ouch that hurts


    HOYTH when gone I am, the last of the IDI will you be. There is another. Hoth, train tadpole. He is the chosen one. the one who bring balance to force. Hoth fiber, you must face fiber evidence, and a Jedi you will be. Sleep must i. one with the force. HOTH when I am gone, you Tadnpole, Makai, and Ziggy are the last of the IDI left

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    madeleine & DeeDee249,

    Wow, excellent posts. You rock!
    This is OT, but I just can't get over that parents used a garrot. How many parents would even know how to fashion a garrot without looking it up on the computer? It's just mind boggling. The garrot has always been the one thing that tosses me into the IDI camp, but I always wind up back in the RDI.

    If there was no evidence that they looked up how to make a garrot online, then wow, talk about some sinister people. Almost makes me want to toss out accidental death as well.

    Well this shows how much I know. The garrot was the stick. I thought garrot was another name for ligature.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    madeleine & DeeDee249,

    Wow, excellent posts. You rock!
    This is OT, but I just can't get over that parents used a garrot. How many parents would even know how to fashion a garrot without looking it up on the computer? It's just mind boggling. The garrot has always been the one thing that tosses me into the IDI camp, but I always wind up back in the RDI.

    If there was no evidence that they looked up how to make a garrot online, then wow, talk about some sinister people. Almost makes me want to toss out accidental death as well.

    Well this shows how much I know. The garrot was the stick. I thought garrot was another name for ligature.
    I think you're laboring under a misunderstanding, JT. So let me help.

    First of all, a true garrote is a cord or wire with a handle on either end. It's designed to overpower and kill someone quickly. It's a favored weapon for the Mafia, special forces military units, assassins, and the like. So, it's not the stick, but it's not just another name for ligature either. "Garrote" was coined early on in the case due to sensationalism.

    Secondly, as I just showed, the ligature used on JB was not a true garrote. It was a crude noose. That's where the "knowing how" part comes in. Whomever made this ligature didn't have a very good idea of how a true garrote works.

    Hope I could help.

    Now, let's get back on subject.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    madeleine & DeeDee249,

    Wow, excellent posts. You rock!
    This is OT, but I just can't get over that parents used a garrot. How many parents would even know how to fashion a garrot without looking it up on the computer? It's just mind boggling. The garrot has always been the one thing that tosses me into the IDI camp, but I always wind up back in the RDI.

    If there was no evidence that they looked up how to make a garrot online, then wow, talk about some sinister people. Almost makes me want to toss out accidental death as well.

    Well this shows how much I know. The garrot was the stick. I thought garrot was another name for ligature.
    What SD said is right. That being said, remember they the Rs were a boating family. They were all (except perhaps JB) familiar with knots.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The panties were not dried in a dryer. Nor had they been laundered. They were a BRAND-NEW pair of size 12 panties taken from a package that Patsy had bought at Bloomingdale's in November during a pre-Christmas trip to New York City. Patsy admitted buying them as a gift for her niece Jenny- but she never got the chance to mail them off before Christmas, so they were still at the house waiting to be sent. Patsy also admitted to police that the panties found on JB were the ones she bought for her niece. She said the remaining set (there were 7 pairs in the set, each with a different day of the week on the waistband) were in JB's drawers, but LE could not find them. 5 YEARS LATER, the R sent the remaining set to LE.
    If JR's shirt fibers were found in the panties JB was wearing, they did not get there from being washed or dried with the shirt, which was a wool shirt anyway, and would have been dry cleaned, not laundered.
    The fiber evidence, iIMHO, links the parents to the crime scene. The shirt fibers could have only gotten there if JR was handling the panties, and involved in wiping her thighs and pubic area (which was noted at autopsy). Patsy's fibers could only have gotten on the sticky side of the mouth tape and entwined in the garrote if she was the one either handling the cord or actually tying the knot.

    By the way, PR was caught in a lie about the panties anyway. She told LE that although she had bought the set for her niece, JB wanted them so she put them in JB panty drawer. She said she didn't recall whether she bought one or two sets. Now- this was only a few WEEKS before the murder of her child. Believe me, you'd remember if it was one of the last Christmas gifts you bought your little girl. How does that explain why none of them were there? Or the fact that 5 years later she found them still brand-new and set them to LE?
    The truth is that those panties were in one of the wrapped gift boxes LE found in the basement. The boxes had been partially unwrapped, obviously to look for a fresh pair while redressing JB after the murder. Though LE described them as "partially wrapped", they were actually partially UNwrapped. I mean, who partially wraps a box? You either wrap it or not. It takes, like, 2 minutes? BUT you can easily see how a wrapped box can be partially UNwrapped, and then the box peeked into to see what's inside.
    If the above facts are "true" and by "true" i suspect that fiber evidence could look like anything -- black wool fibers look the same whether from Israel or Walmart, and black wool shirts would not be uncommon to wear in Winter, it would be equally stringent times on when foreign dna could have been deposited.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    If the above facts are "true" and by "true" i suspect that fiber evidence could look like anything -- black wool fibers look the same whether from Israel or Walmart, and black wool shirts would not be uncommon to wear in Winter, it would be equally stringent times on when foreign dna could have been deposited.
    But the likelihood of an intruder, especilally a SFF, depositing fibers identical to JR's black wool Israeli shirt and PR's fleece jacket is pretty much non-existent.
    And to those who say that parents fibers on their own child are not unusual- to a point, yes. But in this case it is the LOCATION of these fibers that link directly to the crime. The panties (which JR does not say he put on her)- the tape (which PR denies owning) or the garrote KNOT (not just the cord). PR denied ever even wearing that jacket in the basement. When she threw herself on the body, JB was covered with an afghan and face up. The knot was at the back of her neck. And the tape was pulled off by JR and left in the basement. If PR never saw her since she "put her to bed"- how dod her fibers get there?
    And if fibers can be sourced to a garment, and there is a manufacturer tag- the can source it to a store where the garment was sold, and then factor in the location of the store(s) and whether the suspect had possibly been there. In this case, the Rs did not deny those garments belonged to them. They did deny their placement having anything to do with the crime. Remember, there is contamination of the body by BOTH parents. (thanks, Officers French & Arndt)
    Actually, forensically speaking, all black wool fibers would NOT look the same. Different dye lots, different finishing processes, different wool grades and sources (lamb, merino, cashmere, etc) . So there may very well be a difference between a black wool shirt from WalMart vs a shirt from Bloomigdale's.
    Though he also got away with murder, remember the Bruno Magli shoeprint in blood in the Nicole Simpson murder? OJ owned exactly that size and style of Bruno Magli shoe. Though it can be argued that someone else who murdred her may have been wearing that same size and style of shoe, it so unlikely as to be laughable.
    Fiber evidence can and does solve crimes. Today's forensic methods are far better than they were in 1996.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    But the likelihood of an intruder, especilally a SFF, depositing fibers identical to JR's black wool Israeli shirt and PR's fleece jacket is pretty much non-existent.
    And to those who say that parents fibers on their own child are not unusual- to a point, yes. But in this case it is the LOCATION of these fibers that link directly to the crime. The panties (which JR does not say he put on her)- the tape (which PR denies owning) or the garrote KNOT (not just the cord). PR denied ever even wearing that jacket in the basement. When she threw herself on the body, JB was covered with an afghan and face up. The knot was at the back of her neck. And the tape was pulled off by JR and left in the basement. If PR never saw her since she "put her to bed"- how dod her fibers get there?
    And if fibers can be sourced to a garment, and there is a manufacturer tag- the can source it to a store where the garment was sold, and then factor in the location of the store(s) and whether the suspect had possibly been there. In this case, the Rs did not deny those garments belonged to them. They did deny their placement having anything to do with the crime. Remember, there is contamination of the body by BOTH parents. (thanks, Officers French & Arndt)
    Actually, forensically speaking, all black wool fibers would NOT look the same. Different dye lots, different finishing processes, different wool grades and sources (lamb, merino, cashmere, etc) . So there may very well be a difference between a black wool shirt from WalMart vs a shirt from Bloomigdale's.
    Though he also got away with murder, remember the Bruno Magli shoeprint in blood in the Nicole Simpson murder? OJ owned exactly that size and style of Bruno Magli shoe. Though it can be argued that someone else who murdred her may have been wearing that same size and style of shoe, it so unlikely as to be laughable.
    Fiber evidence can and does solve crimes. Today's forensic methods are far better than they were in 1996.
    I was just going to say, those fibers could have been transferred as the result of both PR's lazarus episode and JR's initial discovery of his daughter. While I would like to see DNA evidence, I support Amy's rapist did it, and as Amy reports he wore a black shirt (unspecified whether made of wool) then that could account for black fibers and PR's Lazarus episode could explain her jacket fibers on the rope.

    I agree w/OJ.

    Anyhow if JB's panties are new, then the timeframe allowed for depositing same DNA on different articles of clothing seems very close to her murder.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I was just going to say, those fibers could have been transferred as the result of both PR's lazarus episode and JR's initial discovery of his daughter. While I would like to see DNA evidence, I support Amy's rapist did it, and as Amy reports he wore a black shirt (unspecified whether made of wool) then that could account for black fibers and PR's Lazarus episode could explain her jacket fibers on the rope.

    I agree w/OJ.

    Anyhow if JB's panties are new, then the timeframe allowed for depositing same DNA on different articles of clothing seems very close to her murder.
    Yes, obviously they were deposited at or near the time of her death. The fact that JB was wearing longjohns when JR found and carried her up would eliminate the possibility that JR's shirt fibers got INSIDE the crotch of her panties. The fact that she was covered with an afghan and sweatshirt when PR came into the room and flung herself on the body would eliminate the possibility of her fibers getting entwined in the garrote knot, which was at the back of her neck (JB was placed face UP on the floor). The fact that JR left the tape in the basement after he allegedly pulled if off her mouth eliminates the possibility of PR's fibers getting on the tape at ALL unrelated to the crime. PR said she never saw her daughter from the time she put her to bed till she was led into the room with her body under the Christmas Tree. There is simply no innocent way for PR's fibers to have gotten on the sticky side (the side against JB's lips) of that tape.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    :HBwhiteflag:

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    If PR had hugged JB while she was alive, w/her jacket, then there would be a transfer of red fibers onto JB's person, and if JB kissed or rubbed her cheeks on PR while PR was wearing her jacket, then there could be fibers on her face, and neck, which could transfer to the sticky side of the tape and rope.

    Could these fibers be present on JB prior to her death, as a result of innocent transfer from JR/PR to JB? Do we know whether BR had items of clothing w/similar fibers, or guests at the White's dinner party?

    Were there any unsourced fibers found?

    The black fibers could be consistent w/what Amy's rapist was wearing.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Fiber Analysis
    By BeanE in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 322
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 07:15 PM
  2. CA - Vandals Cut Fiber Lines; State Of Emergency Declared
    By LinasK in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 01:01 PM
  3. Fiber evidence discussion
    By BOESP in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-27-2007, 12:42 AM
  4. Fiber Evidence
    By Linda7NJ in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 01-09-2006, 05:30 PM