Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices

[MurriFlower]

Duplicated post, sorry folks!

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I'll tell you what's telling:

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.

That's all I need.



PR's own words dug her deeper. Instead of using the possiblities you list, she came up with a story that her own book (which I assume she had a chance to read beforehand) contradicts. I hope she asked her lawyer for her money back if she gave him any.



Except it DIDN'T. That's my whole point: since the fibers were only found in the areas I mentioned, it's safe to assume that they got there through direct contact during the commission of the crime.



We're not ASKING her to account for fibers "in her own house." We're asking her to account for fibers that were ONLY FOUND on things she claimed were never IN her house before that night and were taken out immediately afterwards. If you don't see the problem there, I'm at a loss to explain it to you.



IF you could somehow prove they were depositied THAT NIGHT. See, that's one thing PR's fibers have over everything else: we KNOW they were there that night.

THE FIBERS

1. Mr Levin states that he believes fibers from PR's coat are in the paint tray.
2. Mr Kane states they are identical "in all scientific respects".
3. Mr Wood asks to see the lab report.
4. Mr Levin says he believes Mr Kane's statement that the lab technician would testify that it was a conclusive match.
5. Mr Wood asks if the lab technician will testify that it was a conclusive match.
6. Mr Kane replies "yes".

Cute!!

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

If the fibers were only found in one area, as you assert, (and if this is a fact) means that they either may have been in other areas but were not found, or not looked for. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

The only place we know of that had fibers consistent with her coat (that were on an item they didn't own) were the four (4) red fibers on the tape. As discussed, two people who handled the tape also handled the coat, so this is not evidence.

In any event, had they been charged and gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity for the defence to have their own lab technicians look at the fibers and more than likely testify that there was no conclusive match. It would then be up to the jury to decide which 'expert' they were prepared to believe.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

Yes, you certainly seem to have a very active imagination!!

Once again, we agree!

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by otg

Boy, Murri, when you ask a good question, you really know how to get to the heart of whether or not someone knows what they’re talking about. So here goes. I’ll answer as best I can.

I don’t think anyone is really going to care much to follow along with the elaborate calculations involved in figuring this, but I’ll go through it since you asked -- just for the record. Not knowing some measurements, lengths, or distances, I’ll have to estimate some things. I don’t know JonBenet’s exact height, so for this I’ll estimate about four and half feet (1.37 metres for you ). There are pipes running throughout the basement, so we don’t know exactly how high any one particular pipe might be from the floor. We do know that most doors are about 6’, so take a look at these photos and see if you’ll allow me to use 6’ for my estimate of a possible distance from the floor.



Okay, let’s go through the calculations with some rough estimates:

Height of pipe from floor = ~6’ (1.8m) (see above photo of top of door to ceiling, and relative height of pipe)
Height of JBR = ~4.5’ -- my estimate (1.4m)
Distance from top of head to neck = ~8” -- my estimate (0.7m)
Length of cord coming from neck knot = 17” -- from AR (0.4m)
Length of cord from left wrist knot = ~4” -- estimated from photo (0.1m)
Wraps around 5/8” paintbrush = ~10 -- estimated from photo
Length of cord around paintbrush = 0.625” x 3.1415 x 10 = ~19.5” (0.5m)
Excess cord cut off paintbrush knot when completed = unknown (This could be anywhere from 1” to even as much as 2’, because once the cut cord was wrapped around the paintbrush and tied off, the excess was simply cut off.)
Total length of cord coming from neck knot to left wrist knot if one piece = 4” + 17” + 19.5” + at least 1” to 24 excess at paintbrush knot = at least 41.5” to 65” (~3.5’ to 5.5’, or one to 1.5 meters)

So if the neck of a child standing at 4.5’ was ~3’-10” from the floor, an overhead pipe would have to be twice the distance away of the length of the cord for it to be long enough to double over the pipe (6’ - 3’-10” = 2’-2”; 2’-2” x 2 = 4’-4”). So this 4’-4” is about halfway between the calculated length of cord needed to satisfy the possibility of it being used as I suggest. Add a few inches to that if you’d like to figure that her left wrist was probably a little below her neck when restrained.




That’s an excellent point, but her full weight would not have been pulling on her wrist if she was standing on the floor and the cord was over a pipe. Approximate weight of body minus legs = ~3/4?, and that weight would be divided by two to evenly distribute it between the two sides of cord. So, 0.75 x 45-lbs. = ~33-34 lbs., divided by two would put ~15 to 17 pounds pulling on the left wrist. The knot on the left wrist was not a slip knot, so there would be no tightening of the ligature around her wrist, only half the total weight of about 34 lbs. on the one side of wrist. It would only be anyone’s guess as to whether or not there should have been any noted damage (which we know, there was not on the AR). Also, you have to take into consideration that it was probably tied around the sleeve of her blouse which would act as a pad against any bruising or abrasive type injury, and the pulling of her arm would prevent it from being a sudden jolt or jerk of the cord.



Yes, absolutely! Take a look at the many types of putters available (LINK). There were at least two sets of golf clubs in the house. John had a Ping (brand name) set according to Patsy, but then, many golfers have a separate brand/type of putter because of a personal preference. So we don’t know what type of putter was available, or might have been used. Most putters weigh less than one pound, but understand the principle of total weight concentration in a small area (back tip of putter). Imagine a 12” x 12”, square cube weighing ten pounds placed on your stomach. You would hardly even feel it because of the distribution of the weight. However, if you were to balance that ten pounds on its corner on top of your stomach, the full ten pounds would be concentrated in that one small corner, and it would be very uncomfortable. That’s because of the distribution of the weight. So if the full ~3/4-lb. weight of a putter were swung through the air hitting someone on the head, it would do almost unimaginable damage in one small area, and yes, it would have the potential to displace a small oblong section of skull without so much as a scrape on the surface of the scalp if it hit straight on.

Also, I don’t have to remind anyone here that Burke had used a putter once before on his sister, requiring her be treated at the doctor’s office. (And where did that injury happen on her?)




John (from reports, at least) specifically asked that his golf clubs be brought to him after he had left his home. Steve Thomas wrote that when he heard that John had asked for them, he questioned why a man whose daughter had just been killed would be wanting to play golf in the dead of winter.

As to the second part of the question, see above answer.

Murri, I congratulate you, and I thank you. Those were very good questions, and to tell you the truth, I hadn’t gone through an actual calculation of the length of cord required to see if it would work. I just pictured in my mind that it was within the realm of possibility without actually having to take a hard look at the specifics.

Anything else?
.

I've worked out through tedious calculation (only to have my post lost) that there was around 7ft of cord at most. JBR was 4ft high, the pipe is at least 6ft 8" (door height) above the ground. There is not enough cord to go be tied to JBR, go over the pipe and back and tied to JBR again. She could have been tied with one string going over the pipe, or she could have been standing on the chair.

BTW, the picture you posted is of the storeroom adjacent to the laundry. The supposed (but now debunked) theory of where she was killed was in the hallway off the wine cellar.

[MurriFlower]

Murriflower:
2a) Think about it--to me someone would avoid stepping on paper placed on a step, as you are likely to slip. It is not easily possible to bend down and pick up paper from the step below where you feet are placed. You would avoid that step, go to the next step and turn and pick it up. How hard would that be? If a Police officer could not re-create her story, perhaps they either weren’t trying or they had the story wrong. Nonsense and no evidence of guilt.

Superdave: I don't think you quite understand. This was not a regular staircase; this was a narrow, steep spiral staircase. Several different police officers tried to recreate her story, and everyone of them failed.

I understand perfectly, I think it's you who are having a problem.

Please stand on a step and pick up something from the step below where you are standing. How do you do it? With difficulty?

Now, step over the next step and turn around and pick up something from the step above where you are standing. Easier?

Here's a good party trick, folks. Kneel on the floor with a pencil in one hand. Use the other hand, made into a fist, with the elbow against one knee, place the pencil against your knuckles (make like a T). Now, without changing your position, put both hands behind your back and lean forward and touch your nose to the pencil.

Please let me know the results.

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue.

Murriflower: 3a) As they do not know what tape and cord was used, this is just speculation.

SuperDave: You have a point. It's possible no tape or cord was bought from that store.

Finally!! A credit card for an amount does not equal evidence of the purchase of some incriminating items. You know it and they knew it.
MurriFlower:If they thought it was evidence that would stand up in Court they would have used it.

SuperDave: Don't forget who you're talking about. This is the Boulder DA. He'd need a video of the crime just to file charges.

Don't give me that. Simpletons would be able to see that it would be laughed out of a courtroom

MurriFlower: This is an invention of a tabloid ably assisted by ST.

SuperDave: You're wasting my time with that.

I believe that it's true, although sadly I don't have time to find the quote at present. One of the tabloids got hold of their credit card statements and went to the hardware store (and probably everywhere else they had purchased stuff) and found some tape and cord that came to the amount of one of the charges and then gave the information to ST who went all out to try to prove it -- unsuccessfully.


MurriFlower: It does not explain why these items were not found in the house or having been used for any other purpose (unless you are suggesting they were purchased by PR specifically for murdering her daughter!!)

SuperDave: I'm not suggesting that (although there are people who have).

Hmm. Well, ST had this charge that he thought was for the tape and cord purchased at the hardware store. How long was it purchased before the murder? Was it used anywhere else? You usually don't just go and buy cord and tape and then leave it in the package, you get them in order to use them for some particular purpose. It's been suggested that the tape was on her pictures, but it proved to have been put there by the picture framer and was of a different type to that on her mouth, but made for good skuttlebutt.

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue

4a) I do not believe we have a quote from BR anywhere.

If I remember correctly, it was in one of his early interviews.

I've never seen one of his interviews. Where can I access them?
Quote:
How would BR know “whoever killed Jonbenet took out a knife”??

That's EXACTLY what the cops wanted to know!

Hmmm, that's a weird answer.

Quote:
We’ve been over this SAK before, and the one BR owned had his initials on it.

According to who?

His mother described it in an interview.

Quote:
Did the small knife with the broken ornament attached (that was taken into evidence) have his initials. Even if it WAS the same knife, it does not provide evidence of guilt.

It provides evidence of guilt in that whomever did it knew where the knife was. And according to LHP, only she, Patsy and Burke knew.

My question is, IS IT THE SAME KNIFE, not who knew where BRs knife was? If so it will have his initials on it.

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue.

5a) Anyone could have wrapped her for whatever reason.

Even if I were to agree with that, the most obvious answer is usually the right one. And the most obvious answer is an emotional attachment to the victim.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't take an emotional attachment to regret one's action when the heat of the moment passes.

Quote:
This is interesting but is not evidence AGAINST the Rs.

Like hell! It's a CLASSIC sign of parental remorse. That's not just my opinion, either. That's what the FBI told the cops.

Oh, come on, an IDI could have had an emotional attachment, real or in his own mind, it may have even been the reason for the murder. We've also discussed the fact that the wrapping may have been done by an accomplice.

[otg]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

I've worked out through tedious calculation (only to have my post lost) that there was around 7ft of cord at most. JBR was 4ft high, the pipe is at least 6ft 8" (door height) above the ground. There is not enough cord to go be tied to JBR, go over the pipe and back and tied to JBR again. She could have been tied with one string going over the pipe, or she could have been standing on the chair.

BTW, the picture you posted is of the storeroom adjacent to the laundry. The supposed (but now debunked) theory of where she was killed was in the hallway off the wine cellar.

I only posted two pictures to show that there are at least some pipe running at about the same level as the top of the door. There are at least several other basement pictures floating around that show overhead pipes running all over the place. I don’t know exactly where she died, or what was overhead wherever that was; and I certainly don’t know all of the measurements of the ceiling and door heights of that particular basement or the different rooms in it. Nor do I know for certain (though it was my guess) that she was not standing on anything. If she was, I don’t think it would have been anything very high, or there would have been more damage to her throat internally. Also, as I stated to start, I didn’t know JonBenet’s exact height. You say it was 4’ -- I’ll take your word for that because you seem certain of it.

I guess what it all comes down to is that there is a lot that we don’t know with certainty that can make a difference one way or another. You asked if the cord would be long enough to do what I felt the evidence was saying, and I tried to calculate it with as much information as I had, and I noted where I had to estimate. I still feel that with what we know (and what we know that we don’t know), there would be enough cord to make my theory of how it happened plausible -- even if most people don’t even want to consider the possibility. I’m not married to a theory, and I won’t try to slant what I know in an attempt to change the outcome. I believe in letting the evidence speak for itself even if we don’t have enough evidence to be right. I’m just looking at the best information we have and telling you what I think it means. And though you and I may disagree on many things, I’ll listen to candid and logical disagreement any time, and consider the alternatives with an open mind. Who knows -- you may convince me one day to agree with you, or I may convince you to agree with me. Wouldn’t that be great?!

One more thing (I feel like Columbo now)... I don’t think the supposed spot where JonBenet died was really “debunked”, it was only identified as “questionable” because the “urine stain” came from only one source apparently, and somehow got accepted as a fact over the years. That doesn’t make it not true -- just not confirmed. Just goes to show how hungry we all are for information we can use, eh?
.

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue

6a) Boy, a lot of assumptions here. Earlier someone from RDI was saying she had been killed like this so the killer COULD see her eyes.

You'll have to remind me who that was.

Can't remember, one of you RDIs.

Quote:
Whoever killed her though wasn’t averse to touching her body, as they did so in a very intimate way.

You'll have to be more specific, because I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm referring to the person who undressed her, tied her up, strangled her, bashed her head in and digitally penetrated her, redressed her, moved her to the wine cellar and wrapped her in a blanket. I'm thinking there was a bit of touching going on here.

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue.

7a) I’ve addressed this previously.
Yeah, and I doubt you'd like what I have to say about it!

Nothing new there.

Quote:
It was most likely that her arms were crossed in front of her and the ligature attached to each wrist and then behind her back in “straightjacket style”. This would have restrained her more than adequately, without the knots needing to be tied tightly and left 15 ½ inches between the knots. The arms were subsequently pulled above her head when she was lifted or dragged to the WC.

I don't figure that AT ALL. Talk about a lot of assumptions. Since the knots were so loose, it doesn't wash that she was dragged or anything of the sort. Also, where were the marks from the cord on her wrists?

It's a bit like the pages on the stairs. You really have to try it yourself. You've experimented quite a bit with various things, so give it a go. It works!!

[Tadpole12]

I've worked out through tedious calculation (only to have my post lost) that there was around 7ft of cord at most. - MF

otg, what did you calculate for total length used?

[OpenMind4U]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

Once again, we agree!

DD, MF,

I do agree with both of you as well...Any theory has part of 'imagination'. We don't have all the evidence and some which we think we know - could be wrong. I'm only sure on few things: PR knows what happens that night; PR and JR were involved in 'staging'. I still not 100% sure who placed the cord on JBR neck: BR? JAR? or someone very close and dear to R family. And in my opinion, the cord was not part of the 'staging', but rather controlling part of the sexual encounter. I could reconsider the role of the wooden paintbrush as the 'staging' element, placed much later...but as of today, I'm convinced that cord and knots were placed on JBR while she was alive, BEFORE the blow to her head and only after the blow - was tide harder to kill! I have the rights to be wrong.

[Holdontoyourhat]

Originally Posted by OpenMind4U

DD, MF,

I do agree with both of you as well...Any theory has part of 'imagination'. We don't have all the evidence and some which we think we know - could be wrong. I'm only sure on few things: PR knows what happens that night; PR and JR were involved in 'staging'. I still not 100% sure who placed the cord on JBR neck: BR? JAR? or someone very close and dear to R family. And in my opinion, the cord was not part of the 'staging', but rather controlling part of the sexual encounter. I could reconsider the role of the wooden paintbrush as the 'staging' element, placed much later...but as of today, I'm convinced that cord and knots were placed on JBR while she was alive, BEFORE the blow to her head and only after the blow - was tide harder to kill! I have the rights to be wrong.

my bold

I'm sure you're wrong because the evidence and witness testimony would have to be circumvented and ignored. I understand your position though.

[OpenMind4U]

Here is my 'analytical' deduction. We have 3 elements of the deadly actions: blow on head, strangulation and sexual assault. We have 2 important facts: NO DEFENSE WOUNDS on JBR hands and AFTER the head blow, JBR is unconscious but still alive...

...Now, depends on the goal of the 'X-murderer' (XM for easy reference), the 'common sense' of events should be as follow:

XM goal is to kidnap/molest JBR:

IF XM = IDI then
RN;
control with the cord, SEXUAL ASSAULT, scream, BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STRANGULATION to kill fast!
NO STAGING (no time/no need to place tape, clean, redress, hide!);
get out ASAP
ENDIF

XM goal is to molest JBR:

IF XM = IDI then
no RN;
control with the cord, SEXUAL ASSAULT, scream, BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STRANGULATION to kill fast!
NO STAGING (no time/no need to place tape, clean, redress, hide!);
get out ASAP
ELSE
IF XM = RDI then
control with the cord (as part of the game only!!! Otherwise, no cord needed);
SEXUAL ASSAULT, scream, BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STRANGULATION as an ACCIDENT or STRANGULATION to kill fast!
STAGING (place tape, clean, redress, hide, write RN)
ENDIF
ENDIF

Here is ST scenario:

IF XM = PR then
BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STAGING
why add SEXUAL ASSAULT???
Why use STRANGULATION when can be used the 'soft' kill by the pillow???
STAGING (place tape, clean, redress, hide, write RN);
ENDIF

IMO, the second RDI scenario accommodates all deadly elements, known facts and behavior explanation. STRANGULATION for the staging purpose makes no sense at all. Again, JMO.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by otg

I only posted two pictures to show that there are at least some pipe running at about the same level as the top of the door. There are at least several other basement pictures floating around that show overhead pipes running all over the place. I don’t know exactly where she died, or what was overhead wherever that was; and I certainly don’t know all of the measurements of the ceiling and door heights of that particular basement or the different rooms in it. Nor do I know for certain (though it was my guess) that she was not standing on anything. If she was, I don’t think it would have been anything very high, or there would have been more damage to her throat internally. Also, as I stated to start, I didn’t know JonBenet’s exact height. You say it was 4’ -- I’ll take your word for that because you seem certain of it.

I guess what it all comes down to is that there is a lot that we don’t know with certainty that can make a difference one way or another. You asked if the cord would be long enough to do what I felt the evidence was saying, and I tried to calculate it with as much information as I had, and I noted where I had to estimate. I still feel that with what we know (and what we know that we don’t know), there would be enough cord to make my theory of how it happened plausible -- even if most people don’t even want to consider the possibility. I’m not married to a theory, and I won’t try to slant what I know in an attempt to change the outcome. I believe in letting the evidence speak for itself even if we don’t have enough evidence to be right. I’m just looking at the best information we have and telling you what I think it means. And though you and I may disagree on many things, I’ll listen to candid and logical disagreement any time, and consider the alternatives with an open mind. Who knows -- you may convince me one day to agree with you, or I may convince you to agree with me. Wouldn’t that be great?!

One more thing (I feel like Columbo now)... I don’t think the supposed spot where JonBenet died was really “debunked”, it was only identified as “questionable” because the “urine stain” came from only one source apparently, and somehow got accepted as a fact over the years. That doesn’t make it not true -- just not confirmed. Just goes to show how hungry we all are for information we can use, eh?
.

Most of my calculations are based on the Autopsy report, which details her height as well as the length of the ligatures. I needed to estimate the circumfence of the loops, but as there is a ruler in post pictures, this wasn't difficult. The length of cord on the stick is a guestimate. Report is here http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996autopsy.htm

I was trying to show that the hanging wasn't feasible, given the length of the cord. You need to do this calculation yourself to be convinced. The standard door height (here in Oz anyway) is 6'8", so I based the estimate of the height of the pipes on this, as the doors clear the pipework. The larger pipes look like 4" or 6" diameter, I used 4". Of course, if you are just going to say (in backing up the hanging theory) that there was probably more cord that was cut off and sent out with BR in the backpack or with PP in the golf bag, then I'd be disappointed in you!!

You have made me wonder though, if the cord on the stick was capable of strangling her. I can certainly see that it's purpose was so that tension could be kept on the cord while the IDI was standing above, pulling on the stick with a foot on her shoulders (see the enhanced picture I posted earlier with the shoe imprints). How long would it have taken to strangle her like that? Or even for her to become unconscious? Was it the length of time it took the reason for the head bash -- they became impatient?

I said the theory of her having died in the hallway was 'debunked' because, although it is still possible, I wanted people to consider that it is just one person's theory, and is no more valid than another persons as it cannot be verified. What happens here is a theory, that is accepted as fact, gets a life of it's own, other theories attach to it, until there is a whole story developed around something that turns out to have been based on a fictitious clue. In this case, it is the unverified 'urine stain'.

[Toltec]

Well if you had this scenario...ransom letter, sexual assault and blow to the head, than you would well expect the Ramseys to be taken to the police station ASAP...if you add in strangulation, than therein lies the problem.

[Toltec]

Speaking of hanging...weren't JonBenet's feet dirty??

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

THE FIBERS

1. Mr Levin states that he believes fibers from PR's coat are in the paint tray.
2. Mr Kane states they are identical "in all scientific respects".
3. Mr Wood asks to see the lab report.
4. Mr Levin says he believes Mr Kane's statement that the lab technician would testify that it was a conclusive match.
5. Mr Wood asks if the lab technician will testify that it was a conclusive match.
6. Mr Kane replies "yes".

Cute!!

Works for me. Must have worked for PR too, because not only did she nearly faint when told, it took her TWO FULL YEARS to come up with an explanation that only adds to the problem.

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

Oh, I didn't realize you'd read the police case file!

If the fibers were only found in one area, as you assert, (and if this is a fact) means that they either may have been in other areas but were not found, or not looked for. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

The only place we know of that had fibers consistent with her coat (that were on an item they didn't own) were the four (4) red fibers on the tape. As discussed, two people who handled the tape also handled the coat, so this is not evidence.

Sounds like lawyer-speak to me.

In any event, had they been charged and gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity for the defence to have their own lab technicians look at the fibers and more than likely testify that there was no conclusive match. It would then be up to the jury to decide which 'expert' they were prepared to believe.

Exactly.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

I understand perfectly, I think it's you who are having a problem.

Please stand on a step and pick up something from the step below where you are standing. How do you do it? With difficulty?

Now, step over the next step and turn around and pick up something from the step above where you are standing. Easier?

Okay, I think I know where the problem is. I wasn't saying that the cops found it easier to step over it and pick it up. I'm saying that they couldn't "hop" over the step as she claimed to have done without falling. I hope we got that straight.

Finally!! A credit card for an amount does not equal evidence of the purchase of some incriminating items. You know it and they knew it.

That's not quite what I meant.

Don't give me that.

Why the HE** not?! His record is available for anyone to see. Don't take my word for it.

You usually don't just go and buy cord and tape and then leave it in the package, you get them in order to use them for some particular purpose.

That's not necessarily true. I have cord and tape still in the packs. Why? Just in case.

I've never seen one of his interviews. Where can I access them?

They used to be all over the place. I'll look.

His mother described it in an interview.

Oh, yeah, she's an impeccable source! Are we talking about the same woman who described the heart on JB's hand in detail, then turned around and claimed she never even saw it? The woman whose account of how her fibers wound up in compromising areas is at odds with her own husband's writings?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't take an emotional attachment to regret one's action when the heat of the moment passes.

Are you honestly telling me that an intruder who went to all of the trouble to break in, spend hours writing notes and--according to you guys--"brutally" murdered a little girl is going to have a sudden attack of conscience?

Oh, come on, an IDI could have had an emotional attachment, real or in his own mind, it may have even been the reason for the murder. We've also discussed the fact that the wrapping may have been done by an accomplice.

Occam's Razor, Murri. Who is more likely?

Can't remember, one of you RDIs.

I think I'd remember that.

I'm referring to the person who undressed her, tied her up, strangled her, bashed her head in and digitally penetrated her, redressed her, moved her to the wine cellar and wrapped her in a blanket. I'm thinking there was a bit of touching going on here.

Ah. Well, I don't think that's what happened. I think she was hit in the head first and was penetrated by the paintbrush, the brush used specifically so they wouldn't HAVE to touch her flesh. And she was carried to the basement in the blanket. Everything else I can go along with.

It's a bit like the pages on the stairs. You really have to try it yourself. You've experimented quite a bit with various things, so give it a go. It works!!

What makes you think I haven't? Anytime you're ready to present some proof that what you say happened, I'm all ears.

[UKGuy]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

THE FIBERS

1. Mr Levin states that he believes fibers from PR's coat are in the paint tray.
2. Mr Kane states they are identical "in all scientific respects".
3. Mr Wood asks to see the lab report.
4. Mr Levin says he believes Mr Kane's statement that the lab technician would testify that it was a conclusive match.
5. Mr Wood asks if the lab technician will testify that it was a conclusive match.
6. Mr Kane replies "yes".

Cute!!

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

If the fibers were only found in one area, as you assert, (and if this is a fact) means that they either may have been in other areas but were not found, or not looked for. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

The only place we know of that had fibers consistent with her coat (that were on an item they didn't own) were the four (4) red fibers on the tape. As discussed, two people who handled the tape also handled the coat, so this is not evidence.

In any event, had they been charged and gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity for the defence to have their own lab technicians look at the fibers and more than likely testify that there was no conclusive match. It would then be up to the jury to decide which 'expert' they were prepared to believe.

MurriFlower,

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.
16 MR. WOOD: Right. Not, not
17 without -- I mean, with all due respect,
18 Bruce, even the discussion we had, as I can
19 best recall it, we didn't get a consistent
20 description of the fiber results on the
21 question of the paint tray. You are sitting
22 here making a record saying that it is a
23 fact, and I don't know that.
24 MR. LEVIN: I understand that,

All these fibers distributed across the crime-scene will not be accidental. The fibers found in the ligature are incriminating, not conclusively, but I reckon any jury would be highly sceptical of any defense report that claimed the fibers were different from those in her jacket.

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

This is erroneous reasoning, and of the kind you are criticising yourself. You reach a conclusion No evidence yet you cannot know since JonBenet's forensic evidence is sealed and not open to public scrutiny.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by UKGuy

MurriFlower,


All these fibers distributed across the crime-scene will not be accidental. The fibers found in the ligature are incriminating, not conclusively, but I reckon any jury would be highly sceptical of any defense report that claimed the fibers were different from those in her jacket.


This is erroneous reasoning, and of the kind you are criticising yourself. You reach a conclusion No evidence yet you cannot know since JonBenet's forensic evidence is sealed and not open to public scrutiny.

You say it so much more nicely than I would, UKGuy!

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Okay, I think I know where the problem is. I wasn't saying that the cops found it easier to step over it and pick it up. I'm saying that they couldn't "hop" over the step as she claimed to have done without falling. I hope we got that straight.

You're trying to tell me those big sooks couldn't take stairs two at a time? What a COS!

That's not quite what I meant.

Why the HE** not?! His record is available for anyone to see. Don't take my word for it.

That's not necessarily true. I have cord and tape still in the packs. Why? Just in case.

This trying to fit them up with the purchase of the cord and the tape by an amount that according to them, equalled the price of the cord and tape used in the murder, is a dead duck. There was no cord or tape in the house that matched. There was nothing in the house that had any cord or tape on it that matched.

If they were serious about finding the killer and it was true that the cord and tape from the local hardware store was an EXACT MATCH for the cord and tape used in the murder, wouldn't you think they would have spent a bit of time looking at OTHER PURCHASERS of cord and tape around the time of the murder? It stands to reason, by RDI logic, that proximity equals probability, then by Mr Occam's shaving method, the murderer most likely purchased his equipment locally. But it appears that they were just intent on 'fitting up the Rs' and ignored any other purchasers of these two items as potential suspects.

They used to be all over the place. I'll look.

Ta very much.

Oh, yeah, she's an impeccable source! Are we talking about the same woman who described the heart on JB's hand in detail, then turned around and claimed she never even saw it? The woman whose account of how her fibers wound up in compromising areas is at odds with her own husband's writings?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, that lying b**ch didn't say one single word of truth as far as you are concerned (unless it suits your purposes LOL).

Are you honestly telling me that an intruder who went to all of the trouble to break in, spend hours writing notes and--according to you guys--"brutally" murdered a little girl is going to have a sudden attack of conscience?

Yep, it appears so, or his accomplice did. Weird eh? Just as weird as this whole murder was, so at least it's consistent.

Occam's Razor, Murri. Who is more likely?

You must try to get a new line in quotes, this razor is getting a bit blunt. How's about 'Truth is stranger than fiction' LOL.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by UKGuy

MurriFlower,


All these fibers distributed across the crime-scene will not be accidental. The fibers found in the ligature are incriminating, not conclusively, but I reckon any jury would be highly sceptical of any defense report that claimed the fibers were different from those in her jacket.


This is erroneous reasoning, and of the kind you are criticising yourself. You reach a conclusion No evidence yet you cannot know since JonBenet's forensic evidence is sealed and not open to public scrutiny.

Ukguy we've been over this time and again. They can SAY anything they like (but notice they say 'we believe' just to cover themselves LOL) to try to trap someone into incriminating themselves.

Just look at the phrasing of the question (my bold)

"3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those."

Let me ask you:

I believe, based on what an expert told me, that there is evidence to incriminate you in this murder, Ukguy. How do you explain that?

Whatcha gunna say?

Where's this evidence?

If there WAS evidence, they would have produced it, (waving it triumphantly under LW's nose) not just said that 'they believed that someone said'. See the difference??

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

You're trying to tell me those big sooks couldn't take stairs two at a time?

Not on that staircase.

This trying to fit them up with the purchase of the cord and the tape by an amount that according to them, equalled the price of the cord and tape used in the murder, is a dead duck. There was no cord or tape in the house that matched. There was nothing in the house that had any cord or tape on it that matched.

If they were serious about finding the killer and it was true that the cord and tape from the local hardware store was an EXACT MATCH for the cord and tape used in the murder, wouldn't you think they would have spent a bit of time looking at OTHER PURCHASERS of cord and tape around the time of the murder? It stands to reason, by RDI logic, that proximity equals probability, then by Mr Occam's shaving method, the murderer most likely purchased his equipment locally.

Far as I know, they did check out a few other places. There was an Army-Navy store, if memory serves.

But it appears that they were just intent on 'fitting up the Rs' and ignored any other purchasers of these two items as potential suspects.

To you, maybe.

Ta very much.

I'll let you know.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, that lying b**ch didn't say one single word of truth as far as you are concerned (unless it suits your purposes LOL).

WOW. Remember, YOU said that, not me! That was LOW.

And I find it hard to believe you "forgot." You've made it clear that you can't see it when it's slapping you in the face. Well, I can sympathize. I was the same way, once.

Yep, it appears so, or his accomplice did. Weird eh? Just as weird as this whole murder was, so at least it's consistent.

My head hurts again!

You must try to get a new line in quotes, this razor is getting a bit blunt.

It works. And I don't apologize for it.

How's about 'Truth is stranger than fiction' LOL.

Ironic, given the source.