Separating FACT from fiction

Sorry I thought JR was asked to search the house for anything out of place not just see if any of JB's stuff is missing. I guess it is common for kidnappers to remove stuff belonging to the victim child, a favorite blanket or stuffed animal cause it keeps them reassured and quiet.

I'm no expert but the handwriting does look somewhat feminine. It is "pretty" with lots of curves and embellishments.

I hope police departments investigate kidnappings differently now. At the first visit when no one knows anything yet, I mean what better time to collect evidence, without the need for a search warrant, is there. No parent even a guilty one would object to that. If they did they would look even more guilty. Since police would in essence have consent to search and damming evidence couldn't be thrown out later as consent was given.



Why the police would ask them to help search without an officer with them is stupid. In any kidnapping case untrained people might destroy clues without intention, like finding her favorite stuffed animal somewhere then picking it up and hugging it close. An officer present would prevent them from touching anything.
I saw a program on this case once that showed Patsy throwing herself on floor at JB feet and picking her up and holding her sobbing. That really should not have been allowed to happen. In addition to that Police should have had Patsy strip down right then and remove her clothing as transfer just occurred, same as JR who carried her upstairs.

I am angry at the death of a child but an

grier at the FBI and Boulder police for botching the investigation.

You are correct...they did ask him to search for anything out of place...or clues.
 
There were so many mistakes made just with poor JB's body that it is no wonder the case still isn't solved. First, Officer French (the first one on the scene) stood right in front of the wineceller door, just inside was JB's body, at that time still untouched by anyone but the person(s) who put her there. Yet, he couldn't figure out how to open the door, and that altered the investigation forever, right from the start.
Then, JR and FW both touched the body (FW touched her foot) and JC carried her upstairs, holding her upright around the waist (his touch DNA HAD to have been on those longjohns, and here again is a perfect example for how the strange male DNA got on JB- from JR's own hands to JB's panties, where JR's shirt fibers from a shirt he wore that day were found, to her longjohn waistband and panty waistband).
Then, Det. Arndt moved her body from the foyer (where she was placed by JR first) to the rug under the Christmas tree.
Then, JR was allowed to throw an afghan over her.
Then, Det. Arndt threw a sweatshirt over her.
Then, Patsy was allowed to throw herself on top of the COVERED body, she did not pick her up and hold her in her arms.
Then, the coroner did not perform two very important tests that would have helped determine the time of death.
Yes, that poor baby was mishandled as badly after her death as she was before.
 
Help me out SD

I have heard some of the disputes about the fibers found. Mainly the ones from Patsy's sweater, the one she wore twice, was found under the duct tape covering her mouth, and also in the cord knots. Fiber tests are kinda hard to prove as analysis of just the fiber alone cannot be considered anything but similar in color and structure. Dye analysis however is more precise and the chemical comp. of dyes due vary from one manufacture to another.
Example : you have a sweater that has similar fibers to the carpet on your floor, an expert can't really say by just looking at them on a micro scale that they came from the EXACT same source only that they are similar. When the dye make up is looked at then they can say no this fiber doesn't have enough of this chemical to be from the same source. Or the chemical make up of these dyes is exactly the same.

Was the fiber evidence tested further for the dye composition.
 
Help me out SD

I have heard some of the disputes about the fibers found. Mainly the ones from Patsy's sweater, the one she wore twice, was found under the duct tape covering her mouth, and also in the cord knots. Fiber tests are kinda hard to prove as analysis of just the fiber alone cannot be considered anything but similar in color and structure. Dye analysis however is more precise and the chemical comp. of dyes due vary from one manufacture to another.
Example : you have a sweater that has similar fibers to the carpet on your floor, an expert can't really say by just looking at them on a micro scale that they came from the EXACT same source only that they are similar. When the dye make up is looked at then they can say no this fiber doesn't have enough of this chemical to be from the same source. Or the chemical make up of these dyes is exactly the same.

Was the fiber evidence tested further for the dye composition.

You are right. The fibers have always been disputed here. This is because we have no actual evidence of what fibers were found, nor how they were tested. Evidence presented in the Wolv -v- Ramsey case showed many unsourced fibers plus four red acrylic fibers consistent with PR's red/black/grey jacket. ST, in his deposition, stated that only four fibers were found to his knowledge. We have no evidence if they were tested for dye, in fact, aside from this presented in Court, we have no evidence of fibers full stop. The dispute on this forum arose because during an interview, LE suggested to PR and JR that fibers from their clothes were found in suspicious areas in the crime scene. The Rs lawyer asked BPD to 'show and tell' as it were, but they declined. So we are left wondering if there was in fact any fiber evidence or if it was just an interview tactic to try to trap them into implicating themselves.
 
The R lawyers had every right to decline. In this country, the defense is never given full disclosure of evidence until an indictment is made and a trial scheduled. Then, the prosecution must show their "hand". Not before. This is usually the time when the defense may ask for a plea bargain after seeing the evidence against their client.
The R lawyers asked, knowing full well it would be refused.
 
The R lawyers had every right to decline. In this country, the defense is never given full disclosure of evidence until an indictment is made and a trial scheduled. Then, the prosecution must show their "hand". Not before. This is usually the time when the defense may ask for a plea bargain after seeing the evidence against their client.
The R lawyers asked, knowing full well it would be refused.

Exactly. And because they were never indicted the 'fiber evidence' has never been proven. It is no different to LE telling a suspect that they have 'a witness' who saw them at the scene of the crime, in order to try to elicit a confession. It's just a tactic.
 
Exactly. And because they were never indicted the 'fiber evidence' has never been proven. It is no different to LE telling a suspect that they have 'a witness' who saw them at the scene of the crime, in order to try to elicit a confession. It's just a tactic.

I disagree. They may very well had the fiber analysis to link the fibers to the parents' clothing. Because there was no trial, this was never publicized. While tactics you describe (a witness, etc.) are commonly used, fiber analysis is something the prosecution would actually have to present at a trial, so they'd have to put their money where their mouth is.
 
I disagree. They may very well had the fiber analysis to link the fibers to the parents' clothing. Because there was no trial, this was never publicized. While tactics you describe (a witness, etc.) are commonly used, fiber analysis is something the prosecution would actually have to present at a trial, so they'd have to put their money where their mouth is.

If you agree that they can 'say' they have a witness, then this would be no different to fiber evidence, as a witness would have to be produced at trial also. I think the only difference with this case is (and for reasons not fully understood by me) we have transcripts of these interviews, which I assume would never ordinarily been made public.
 
Ok there may be evidence that the BPD has never released and they are holding it close like an ace in the hole.
 
Ok there may be evidence that the BPD has never released and they are holding it close like an ace in the hole.

One of the detectives who had worked on the case said that only about 10% of the evidence has been made public. So there is a whole lotta evidence the public (that means us) have never seen. That is probably why the BPD were so sure about the parents' involvement that they didn't seem to look too long at anyone else.

As far as the witness being the same as fiber evidence in a trial- I don't think it is the same. The prosecution would have to disclose the fiber evidence of it existed, but they could choose not to call a witness to testify. In many trials, there are people who could be, but are not, called to the witness stand. It is up to the prosecution.
 
The odds of it being anyone outside the home is what kept the BPD focused on the family. It doesn't sound like they are so focused on the family now as many announcements "clearing" them as suspects from BPD investigation have been made.

Stranger on stranger crimes are not as common as people who know each other committing crimes against each other. If the BPD had compelling evidence against the family they would have used it by now. Many a person sits in prison now convicted on circumstantial evidence. There are so many scenarios on these JB threads that blame the family and sound very plausible. If BPD has any evidence to support one of these theories I'm sure they would have used it by now. I guess that is all we do, is look at the less than 10% that has been released to public. I sometimes feel like if the evidence was that good they wouldn't have released it or that what they are holding back lessens the investigative value of what they released. The fibers for example. Lets say they did do the dye tests and the tests prove the fibers didn't come from the sweater Patsy wore. While we debate the origin of the fibers and point fingers at who we think the fibers came from, without that dye test results we can't really say.
I wonder how long all the evidence can be held before someone outside the BPD could investigate it. In a lot of the cold case TV shows, private investigators had no problem getting access to the evidence collected. Police helped these investigators who sometimes happen to be retired police officers. They welcomed the help as they had given up and the case gone to a "cold case" status.
Is it like national security issues 50 years before release? or because there is no statute of limitations on murder- never.
 
The odds of it being anyone outside the home is what kept the BPD focused on the family. It doesn't sound like they are so focused on the family now as many announcements "clearing" them as suspects from BPD investigation have been made.

Stranger on stranger crimes are not as common as people who know each other committing crimes against each other. If the BPD had compelling evidence against the family they would have used it by now. Many a person sits in prison now convicted on circumstantial evidence. There are so many scenarios on these JB threads that blame the family and sound very plausible. If BPD has any evidence to support one of these theories I'm sure they would have used it by now. I guess that is all we do, is look at the less than 10% that has been released to public. I sometimes feel like if the evidence was that good they wouldn't have released it or that what they are holding back lessens the investigative value of what they released. The fibers for example. Lets say they did do the dye tests and the tests prove the fibers didn't come from the sweater Patsy wore. While we debate the origin of the fibers and point fingers at who we think the fibers came from, without that dye test results we can't really say.
I wonder how long all the evidence can be held before someone outside the BPD could investigate it. In a lot of the cold case TV shows, private investigators had no problem getting access to the evidence collected. Police helped these investigators who sometimes happen to be retired police officers. They welcomed the help as they had given up and the case gone to a "cold case" status.
Is it like national security issues 50 years before release? or because there is no statute of limitations on murder- never.

The only one "clearing" the Rs is DA Mary Lacy. She was determined to do this before she left office regardless of whether it was warranted. The BPD were prevented by the DA's office from investigating the family the way they wanted to. The evidence that has still be unreleased to the public will remain sealed until the case is solved, probably forever. There is no statute of limitations on a murder case.
TV shows are just that- TV shows. They are written and scripted to solve the case in an hour. NOT real life at all. In most jurisdictions, the police and the DA DO work together and the police are given whatever warrants needed to investigate the crime. THIS case didn't happen like that.
 
Help me out SD

Always.

I have heard some of the disputes about the fibers found. Mainly the ones from Patsy's sweater, the one she wore twice, was found under the duct tape covering her mouth, and also in the cord knots. Fiber tests are kinda hard to prove as analysis of just the fiber alone cannot be considered anything but similar in color and structure. Dye analysis however is more precise and the chemical comp. of dyes due vary from one manufacture to another.
Example : you have a sweater that has similar fibers to the carpet on your floor, an expert can't really say by just looking at them on a micro scale that they came from the EXACT same source only that they are similar. When the dye make up is looked at then they can say no this fiber doesn't have enough of this chemical to be from the same source. Or the chemical make up of these dyes is exactly the same.

Was the fiber evidence tested further for the dye composition.

Yes. According to statements in everything from Perfect Murder, Perfect Town to various interview transcripts, the fibers were analyzed chemically and spectrographically.
 
As far as the witness being the same as fiber evidence in a trial- I don't think it is the same. The prosecution would have to disclose the fiber evidence of it existed, but they could choose not to call a witness to testify. In many trials, there are people who could be, but are not, called to the witness stand. It is up to the prosecution.

Yeah, it's apples and oranges. Non-testimonial evidence is treated differently than testimonial evidence.
 
Yeah, it's apples and oranges. Non-testimonial evidence is treated differently than testimonial evidence.

No you are both quite wrong here. Investigators can say exactly anything they want, as far as lying about what evidence or witnesses they have, in order to get a confession. So long as they don't produce false evidence or witnesses, it's all sweet. If you both have so much knowledge of the law and LE, you would know this.

What they can and can't do is freely available on the net.
 
No you are both quite wrong here. Investigators can say exactly anything they want, as far as lying about what evidence or witnesses they have, in order to get a confession. So long as they don't produce false evidence or witnesses, it's all sweet. If you both have so much knowledge of the law and LE, you would know this.

What they can and can't do is freely available on the net.

I believe they are talking about court testimony here, not questioning suspects in order to get a confession. DeeDee, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
No you are both quite wrong here. Investigators can say exactly anything they want, as far as lying about what evidence or witnesses they have, in order to get a confession. So long as they don't produce false evidence or witnesses, it's all sweet. If you both have so much knowledge of the law and LE, you would know this.

What they can and can't do is freely available on the net.

Neither of us are lawyers, as far as I know, so you can skip the sarcasm. I meant what I said- they CAN lie when questioning a suspect, but if it comes to trial they have to disclose what they have- and don't have. And they have to tell the truth at that point. I said that if they HAD fiber evidence they'd have to produce it at trial. If they didn't have it but said they did, they'd have to disclose THAT, too, if it went to trial.
So I'd say I was quite right.
 
Investigators can say exactly anything they want, as far as lying about what evidence or witnesses they have, in order to get a confession. So long as they don't produce false evidence or witnesses, it's all sweet.

POLICE can say anything they want. Lawyers have to play it straight.

If you both have so much knowledge of the law and LE, you would know this.

I do know it. That seems to be the problem between you and me!
 
Sorry to be such a pyrate, but I believe absolutely and without a doubt that the Ramseys are guilty. I've written a darn encyclopedia on the evidence that could have proven this, had there not been two D.A.s and "Intruder" Lou Smit covering for the Ramseys and obstructing the BPD investigation at every turn.

Yes, just my opinion. But there is a mountain of evidence leading nowhere but to the Ramseys and their home. Life is so fragile, and somewhere in that home, in the heart of those who were supposed to protect her, a child was molested and broken. Her parents have spent 14 years making sure no one ever answers for it.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,351
Total visitors
2,465

Forum statistics

Threads
590,015
Messages
17,929,011
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top