I thought the police refused to reveal the fiber evidence even when the lawyers said tell us what you have or we won't answer any questions in regards to it.
Sure sounds like they revealed a lot to me:
MR. LEVIN: I can state to you, Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of the scientific examination of fibers, that, based on the state of the art technology, that I believe, based on testing, that fibers from your client's coat are in the paint tray.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a fact that they are from the coat or is it consistent with? What is the test result terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I think she is entitled to know that when you ask her to explain something.
MR. KANE: It is identical in all scientific respects.
MR. WOOD: What does that mean? Are you telling me it is conclusive?
MR. KANE: It is identical.
MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: You can draw your own conclusions.
MR. WOOD: I am not going to draw my own conclusions.
MR. KANE: I am saying it is identical.
MR. WOOD: Well, what you are saying in terms of how you interpret a lab result may or may not be the lab result. If you have it, let's see it. I would be glad to let her answer a question about it, but I don't want to go into the area of where we are dealing with someone's interpretation of something that may not be a fact and have her explain something because she can't explain something that might be someone's opinion or someone's interpretation. She can try to answer something if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what
the examiner would testify to.
MR. WOOD: Will he testify that it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, I have scientific evidence from forensic scientists that say that there's fibers in the paint tray that match your red jacket. I have no evidence from any scientist to suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket.
As for Wood saying, "show us what you have or we won't talk about it," that's what he's supposed to do.
I wouldn't have revealed anything to him, either. I honestly think Mr. Wood did his clients a big disservice by stonewalling.
As a sidenote, Schiller's book mentioned as early as 1999 that chemical and microscopic analysis had been performed.
I know a lot of books have been written by different people involved in the case. It seems that all have a hidden agenda, well some are not so well hidden and rather blatant.
What's that got to do with anything?
The Brown fibers Shilling writes about --- are they real and can they be verified by BPD?
I have no idea.
I expect fibers from the family to be on JBR.
We all would. Except they WEREN'T. That's what I keep trying to tell people. The only places the fibers are mentioned are in places that they
should not be in. Places that, according to IDI, they could not have been in because, supposedly, those items were never in the house until that night.
When John found her he goofed up the whole crime scene when he moved her, and especially when he moved the tape. There are photos of the blanket in the basement with a piece of duct tape on it. Was this the tape that covered her mouth?
As far as we know.
The fact that it came into contact with the blanket could easily explain the presence of the fibers on it.
That might explain the fibers on the tape. And I stress "might." But nothing explains the fibers in the knot and paint tray. Patsy Ramsey tried, except her story is contradicted by the writings of her own husband. Wendy Murphy summed it up when she said that Patsy's story would require "flat-out magic" in order to work.
I also can not find a reliable source stating these fibers were found in the knot. Is there anything released from BPD about them? Please post link.
Will the quotes above do? I don't see what's more reliable than two prosecutors with winning records and reputations for ethics who are FORBIDDEN from lying, because they know they'll be censured if they do.
I don't totally trust Steve Thomas book as the Bible on this case.
IMO he tried to put some false info out there in order for the R's to come up with an "explanation" that would have been obviously false as the evidence was false.
I doubt it. The info we're talking about wasn't in his book. It wasn't tested until after he had left.
it has also been said he resigned before he could be fired.
I'm not aware of anyone with any credibility who has said that. He resigned for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was that his health was deteriorating.
His book causes some problems if he is ever called to testify in a trial of a JBR killer. What he wrote has to match up to what he testifies to or his testimony will look very shady and suspicious.
Agreed.
He didn't care enough to keep his mouth shut and not damage the case. He could have written down all the evidence he claims are against the R's and given copies to a lawyer. Waited for the rest of his life (if need be) in respect to JBR and not mess up the case any further.
Not that I disagree with you, but I can understand WHY he did what he did. It's always better to do something, even if it's wrong, than to do nothing. It was people doing nothing that's put this case in the damn lousy shape it's in. I can't say I would have done any different. In fact, I'd have gone even further. I'd have turned in my badge, taken a gun with blanks in it, walked into Alex Hunter's office, fired a few shots, and said "I quit!" while he was cowering under the desk. But now that I think of it, as big an *advertiser censored*****e as Hunter was and with as many people as he'd p****d off in his years as DA, he'd probably have a REAL gun in his desk.
His need or greed for money and to be heard is why he wrote the book.
I don't know about the first, but definitely the second.
He acted like a pitbull does when they have prey down and by the throat.
I wish the same could be said for the DA's office.
Even when others he worked with cautioned him his ideas could not be proven as conflicting evidence existed he choose not to listen and proceeded anyway.
Given WHO was telling him that, I can't say I blame him.
Why did he change occupations, is there perhaps something in his employment files that would make him undesirable to another PD?
It's a lot simpler than that, CathyR. He was so soured by this case, he didn't
WANT another job in law enforcement. He even turned down an offer when it was made.
I am leery of sources that have an agenda and he and all the other book authors have one.
I won't take that personally.