Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 09-18-2010, 05:56 PM
CathyR's Avatar
CathyR CathyR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
If you read that interview, Patsy said that JB cut her hair herself when she was three. Patsy says "in jest" that is she got sick of JB arguing about having her hair done, she'd just cut it off. Then she says that JB cut her own hair when she was about 3. I wouldn't view that off-hand comment as much of anything. I don't see it as an abusive comment. I am sure many a mom has said that to a kid who fusses about having their hair fixed.

Thanks for posting the link.
I have a confession here. My daughter who is now 30 used to cut her hair, her brothers hair, her dolls, my little ponies, anything with hair. I threatened to SHAVE HER HEAD if she didn't stop after she gave the dog a reverse mohawk

I must have been a horrible mother but it worked, Thank God. I don't think I could have really done it.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-18-2010, 10:41 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
That could depend on which of the 4 personality type combinations he is. A more analytical person would have a "method" top to bottom , bottom to top. If he was closer to basement ( bottom) than her room he would logically start at basement. Remember they just asked him to survey his entire house for anything out of place. They weren't asking him to look for JB but for missing items, moved furniture, a hole in a wall who knows what just anything unusual.

If guilty I wouldn't go to basement for anything.
IMO- a guilty conscience and a mind bent on cover up wouldn't allow a person to go anywhere near the body until it was found by someone else.

The unusual odor Fleet noticed perks up my ears though. I suspect some chemical, something simple and likely to be in any household. Rubbing alcohol,while not as effective as bleach at destroying DNA it evaporates and is near odorless after it has evaporated. The smell of bleach lingers and screams CLEAN UP ON CRIME SCENE. Did Fleet ever describe what this odor was or what it reminded him of. If it was a "nursing home odor" we can attribute that to her bed wetting. Even if she didn't wet the bed the night before, she slept in a bed that had been wet in plenty of times.

I would look inside a freezer or fridge as kids have been known to get inside them to play. That doesn't raise my suspicion of family members.

Don't get me wrong here I haven't made up my mind who I think did it cause nothing very solid has been found yet.
The more I read here the more questions I have.
While I want this case to be solved I don't want to make accusations or theorize who did it, (a lot of people look good for this) without some solid proof. I'm sure people better trained for this and smarter than me haven't found that piece of the puzzle or someone would have been be arrested by now.
It is just so darn sad to see a murdered child not be able to get justice.

Everything we post is only our opinion, as no one here (that we are aware of) knows the truth. If there were solid proof, we wouldn't need to be here, because the case would be solved. That is why it is NOT solved- because there is no solid proof. In the absence of that proof, obviously people have varying opinions on who the perp(s) are.
There are so many pieces of this puzzle, and many of them fit, but many do not, that in the absence of solid proof, it seems like solving it is hopeless.
There is a lot of information on this case that you would find helpful, and there are sites that have the information all in one place. It is difficult to get a good overview from the forum sites. I found watching the DVD of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" was helpful at the beginning, and I also read the book.

That being said- a ransom note was left. Kids that hide in a freezer or fridge don't write ransom notes, especially one like that (I assume you have read it, it is available online). It is very suspicious that the father of a supposedly "kidnapped" child goes straight to a hidden basement room and "finds" her. Why wouldn't you check her room first? The detective told him to see if any of her things (clothes, toys) were missing and he goes to a hidden basement storage room first? That, to me, is suspicious.
Whenever a "missing" child turns out not to be missing, but found dead in her own home, the parents are always the first suspects. JB's parents were home when she was killed, and that makes them suspects for that reason as well. The FBI were on the scene at the very beginning, knowing nothing about JB or her family, and they told the police right away "you're going to be finding her body". They knew right away it was no kidnapping. They were right.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #78  
Old 09-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Ames's Avatar
Ames Ames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere In Time
Posts: 5,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
That could depend on which of the 4 personality type combinations he is. A more analytical person would have a "method" top to bottom , bottom to top. If he was closer to basement ( bottom) than her room he would logically start at basement. Remember they just asked him to survey his entire house for anything out of place. They weren't asking him to look for JB but for missing items, moved furniture, a hole in a wall who knows what just anything unusual.

If guilty I wouldn't go to basement for anything.
IMO- a guilty conscience and a mind bent on cover up wouldn't allow a person to go anywhere near the body until it was found by someone else.

The unusual odor Fleet noticed perks up my ears though. I suspect some chemical, something simple and likely to be in any household. Rubbing alcohol,while not as effective as bleach at destroying DNA it evaporates and is near odorless after it has evaporated. The smell of bleach lingers and screams CLEAN UP ON CRIME SCENE. Did Fleet ever describe what this odor was or what it reminded him of. If it was a "nursing home odor" we can attribute that to her bed wetting. Even if she didn't wet the bed the night before, she slept in a bed that had been wet in plenty of times.

I would look inside a freezer or fridge as kids have been known to get inside them to play. That doesn't raise my suspicion of family members.

Don't get me wrong here I haven't made up my mind who I think did it cause nothing very solid has been found yet.
The more I read here the more questions I have.
While I want this case to be solved I don't want to make accusations or theorize who did it, (a lot of people look good for this) without some solid proof. I'm sure people better trained for this and smarter than me haven't found that piece of the puzzle or someone would have been be arrested by now.
It is just so darn sad to see a murdered child not be able to get justice.
My point is...if JR was innocent, he would have checked her BEDROOM for clues first...since that is the last place they supposedly saw her alive. If your child were missing from their room, and that was the last place that you saw her...and you were asked to search the house for clues...where is the first place you would look? Don't know about you, but the first place that I would look, would be the last place I saw her...her bedroom. The WC door was latched, why in the world would he go down to the basement, and check behind that locked door for clues?? It makes no sense at all...unless he just wanted her found, and knew where to look. Which is precisely the case, IMO.
__________________
"This time we get it right."
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ames For This Useful Post:
  #79  
Old 09-19-2010, 01:09 PM
Ames's Avatar
Ames Ames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere In Time
Posts: 5,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
Everything we post is only our opinion, as no one here (that we are aware of) knows the truth. If there were solid proof, we wouldn't need to be here, because the case would be solved. That is why it is NOT solved- because there is no solid proof. In the absence of that proof, obviously people have varying opinions on who the perp(s) are.
There are so many pieces of this puzzle, and many of them fit, but many do not, that in the absence of solid proof, it seems like solving it is hopeless.
There is a lot of information on this case that you would find helpful, and there are sites that have the information all in one place. It is difficult to get a good overview from the forum sites. I found watching the DVD of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" was helpful at the beginning, and I also read the book.

That being said- a ransom note was left. Kids that hide in a freezer or fridge don't write ransom notes, especially one like that (I assume you have read it, it is available online). It is very suspicious that the father of a supposedly "kidnapped" child goes straight to a hidden basement room and "finds" her. Why wouldn't you check her room first? The detective told him to see if any of her things (clothes, toys) were missing and he goes to a hidden basement storage room first? That, to me, is suspicious.
Whenever a "missing" child turns out not to be missing, but found dead in her own home, the parents are always the first suspects. JB's parents were home when she was killed, and that makes them suspects for that reason as well. The FBI were on the scene at the very beginning, knowing nothing about JB or her family, and they told the police right away "you're going to be finding her body". They knew right away it was no kidnapping. They were right.
Yes, and John himself said that he thought it was "an inside job", and that a woman had written the RN. He ...to me...was giving a clue right there...he thinks that a woman wrote the note, and that it was an inside job. Patsy was a woman...and she was most definately inside.
__________________
"This time we get it right."
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:51 AM
CathyR's Avatar
CathyR CathyR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 400
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 angrier at the FBI and Boulder police for botching the investigation.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CathyR For This Useful Post:
  #81  
Old 09-20-2010, 05:50 PM
Ames's Avatar
Ames Ames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere In Time
Posts: 5,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
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.
__________________
"This time we get it right."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ames For This Useful Post:
  #82  
Old 09-20-2010, 08:24 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
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.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #83  
Old 09-20-2010, 08:45 PM
CathyR's Avatar
CathyR CathyR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 400
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.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:07 PM
MurriFlower MurriFlower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:15 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
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.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #86  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:26 PM
MurriFlower MurriFlower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:31 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
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.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #88  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:35 PM
MurriFlower MurriFlower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-20-2010, 09:44 PM
CathyR's Avatar
CathyR CathyR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 400
Ok there may be evidence that the BPD has never released and they are holding it close like an ace in the hole.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-21-2010, 09:29 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
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.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #91  
Old 09-22-2010, 11:22 AM
CathyR's Avatar
CathyR CathyR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 400
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.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-22-2010, 08:52 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
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.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #93  
Old 09-22-2010, 11:20 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
Help me out SD
Always.

Quote:
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.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:
  #94  
Old 09-22-2010, 11:23 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
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.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:
  #95  
Old 09-22-2010, 11:35 PM
MurriFlower MurriFlower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-23-2010, 08:09 AM
joeskidbeck's Avatar
joeskidbeck joeskidbeck is offline
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
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.
__________________
"This Time We Get it Right!"

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-23-2010, 08:41 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
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.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #98  
Old 09-23-2010, 08:42 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeskidbeck View Post
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.
See if my previous comment helps.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #99  
Old 09-23-2010, 10:30 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
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.

Quote:
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!
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:
  #100  
Old 09-30-2010, 10:13 PM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
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.
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!