A good read - Black Tape and other interesting bits

Holdontoyourhat said:
Freshly purchased black duct tape?

If the date of manufacture was only a few weeks before the black duct tape was used in a murder, that suggests the tape was purchased for the murder, and the murder was premeditated. This goes against the flow of an 'accident' hastily 'covered up', doesn't it? If JBR was accidentally killed, and a coverup to make it look like a murder, the tape would have been somethign that was lying around the house, not freshly purchased.

Not necessarily, but it could show that the Rs purchased the tape in question (obviously for some reason but not having to be murder), that it was inside their home at the time of JB's death, and that it disappeared afterwards.
IOW, an intruder perp did not bring it with him/her.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Freshly purchased black duct tape?

If the date of manufacture was only a few weeks before the black duct tape was used in a murder, that suggests the tape was purchased for the murder, and the murder was premeditated. This goes against the flow of an 'accident' hastily 'covered up', doesn't it? If JBR was accidentally killed, and a coverup to make it look like a murder, the tape would have been something that was lying around the house, not freshly purchased.
O...kay.. Can you please explain the difference between something newly purchased and lying around the house and something NOT newly purchased and lying around the house?

Analogy:-

My daughter knocks out a tooth. I put the tooth in some milk which I purchased that morning and take her to the hospital where they are able to replace the tooth.

Does the fact that we used newly purchased milk suggest that the knocking out of the tooth was premeditated? Should I expect a visit from the Social Services?

How long would the duct tape need to be have been ying around the house in order for it to qualify as NOT premeditated?

Since it seems perfectly possible for Patsy to have purchased this roll of duct tape from McGuckins as early as 2nd December, does three weeks qualify as "lying around"?
 
Nehemiah said:
Not necessarily, but it could show that the Rs purchased the tape in question (obviously for some reason but not having to be murder), that it was inside their home at the time of JB's death, and that it disappeared afterwards.
IOW, an intruder perp did not bring it with him/her.
I'd say its unlikely that the R's would've freshly purchased both black duct tape and cord for other separate legitimate purposes, just by coincidence, in the few weeks prior to JBR's murder. IOW, if both the cord and black duct tape were recent purchases, and both obviously used in the murder, it would suggest they were purchased for the murder.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
I'd say its unlikely that the R's would've freshly purchased both black duct tape and cord for other separate legitimate purposes, just by coincidence, in the few weeks prior to JBR's murder. IOW, if both the cord and black duct tape were recent purchases, and both obviously used in the murder, it would suggest they were purchased for the murder.
Do you consider it at all feasible that an intruder might have used cord and duct tape purchased by the Ramseys in Jonbenet's murder and then removed them both in case they had forensic evidence on them?

Can we establish whether the RST would accept the cord and duct tape being PURCHASED by the Ramseys - but just not used by them?
 
Jayelles said:
O...kay.. Can you please explain the difference between something newly purchased and lying around the house and something NOT newly purchased and lying around the house?

Analogy:-

My daughter knocks out a tooth. I put the tooth in some milk which I purchased that morning and take her to the hospital where they are able to replace the tooth.

Does the fact that we used newly purchased milk suggest that the knocking out of the tooth was premeditated? Should I expect a visit from the Social Services?

How long would the duct tape need to be have been ying around the house in order for it to qualify as NOT premeditated?

Since it seems perfectly possible for Patsy to have purchased this roll of duct tape from McGuckins as early as 2nd December, does three weeks qualify as "lying around"?
This analogy supposes that milk, a common commodity, can be viewed the same as black duct tape. Black duct tape just isn't purchased that often, and if an R bought some at the local hardware store, along with some cord, then a clerk would've remembered it. BTW have we been able to find the legitimate use for black duct tape or cord anywhere else in the house? No?
 
Jayelles said:
Do you consider it at all feasible that an intruder might have used cord and duct tape purchased by the Ramseys in Jonbenet's murder and then removed them both in case they had forensic evidence on them?

Can we establish whether the RST would accept the cord and duct tape being PURCHASED by the Ramseys - but just not used by them?
There's no evidence or testimony that an R purchased these items, despite the fact these items were apparently recently purchased.

The remaining tape and cord rolls were never found, correct?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
This analogy supposes that milk, a common commodity, can be viewed the same as black duct tape. Black duct tape just isn't purchased that often, and if an R bought some at the local hardware store, along with some cord, then a clerk would've remembered it.
When I go to the town, I buy what we need - whether it is short shelf-life supplies like milk or to restock on envelopes if I think I might be running low.

As long as I am financially comfortable, I will maintain stocks of "occasional" items. Let's recap what we know for sure (and I cannot remember whether the following applies to the cord too):-

Patsy had a receipt(s) for McGuckins dated 2-9th December
The tape which was used on JonBenet was purchased at McGuckins
The receipt was not itemised
There was an item on the receipt of the same price as the roll of duct tape

Now - this would tend to confirm that Patsy visited McGuckins just before Christmas - during the time when McGuckins were selling the batch of duct tape used in the murder. Patsy purchased numerous items - one of which MAY have been the duct tape. However, for your theory to hold water, the duct tape would have been the reason for the visit to McGuckins. What I am saying is that patsy might have gone to McGuckins for some other urgent item and whilst there, she may have browsed and popped some other items in he cart which she knew they were running low on.

Don't you do this? I do. I go into a store for paperclips and come out with two bags full of other items.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
There's no evidence or testimony that an R purchased these items, despite the fact these items were apparently recently purchased.

The remaining tape and cord rolls were never found, correct?
You didn't answer the question.

Would you accept the Ramseys purchasing the items as long as an intruder used them?
 
sissi said:
The theater, black gaffers tape! Used for covering stage wires, is it used in photography? Maybe an online source, with a December order date? Works like duct tape, leaves NO residue!
http://www.uline.com/Browse_Listing_3110.asp?pricode=wf726
Black gaffer tape is used on stage to mark the stage as well as to protect wires etc.

It might well have been used to mark the stop/turning points in a pageant. Patsy might well have purchased it to enable Jonbenet to "practice" using the gaffer tape markers.

I have used it for all sorts of stuff backstage. It is very, very sticky but it tears easily using just my fingernails to start the tear.

I use a similar, lighter adhesive tape to cover my christmas light wires if they must lie across the floor.
 
Jayelles said:
You didn't answer the question.

Would you accept the Ramseys purchasing the items as long as an intruder used them?
IMO an intruder had recently purchased both the black tape and cord, for the purpose of murder.

If it is established that both the black duct tape and cord were recent purchases, it does suggest the murder was premeditated. Its unlikely that both black duct tape AND cord would be purchased, and yet no other evidence of a legitimate application of either item by any household member has been found.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
IMO an intruder had recently purchased both the black tape and cord, for the purpose of murder.

If it is established that both the black duct tape and cord were recent purchases, it does suggest the murder was premeditated. Its unlikely that both black duct tape AND cord would be purchased, and yet no other evidence of a legitimate application of either item by any household member has been found.
Therefore, you think that the purchase of these items are inextricably linked with the premeditated murder of JBR?

What about the sharpie pen? Don't you think it's possible that the murderer actually removed the pen used and that the pen in the holder was just a similar one?
 
Jayelles said:
The tape which was used on JonBenet was purchased at McGuckins
Its possible, but I'm not sure how you could present this so factually. Manufacturers and distributors dont ship batches of tape exclusively to one store. Unless the roll was found and had a McGuckins sticker on it, how do you know it came from a specific store?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Its possible, but I'm not sure how you could present this so factually. Manufacturers and distributors dont ship batches of tape exclusively to one store. Unless the roll was found and had a McGuckins sticker on it, how do you know it came from a specific store?
Batches are slightly different and therefore have batch numbers! If it can be proved that a certain store in town stocked a particular batch number and were the only store to do so, then a reasonable assumption can be made.

The duct tape used in the murder was analysed and identified as coming from a particular batch which was stocked by McGuckins. Something to do with the chemical make-up of the adhesive.

I fail to understand why the RST need to distance the Ramseys from this duct tape - unless they feel that the purchase of the duct tape and cord are inextricably linked to the murderer.

I think it is perfectly possible that that murderer found the duct tape and cord in the house and used it - and then removed them in case there was forensics on them. I think it is perfectly possible that the killer removed all small items connected with the murder to minimise the forensics.

Of course it is possible that the tape came from another store in another town which had the same batch. However, at the end of the day, it comes down to *reasonable* doubt, probability and some reasonable assumptions.

Pity the Ramseys had to behave in such an evasive manner. There is clearly insufficient evidence to incriminate them and if they had co-operated fully and offered polygraph tests, they would have been exonerated in the public eye.

This case is a mystery of global interest BECAUSE of the Ramseys' behaviour post murder.
 
Jayelles said:
Batches are slightly different and therefore have batch numbers! If it can be proved that a certain store in town stocked a particular batch number and were the only store to do so, then a reasonable assumption can be made.

The duct tape used in the murder was analysed and identified as coming from a particular batch which was stocked by McGuckins. Something to do with the chemical make-up of the adhesive.

I fail to understand why the RST need to distance the Ramseys from this duct tape - unless they feel that the purchase of the duct tape and cord are inextricably linked to the murderer.

I think it is perfectly possible that that murderer found the duct tape and cord in the house and used it - and then removed them in case there was forensics on them. I think it is perfectly possible that the killer removed all small items connected with the murder to minimise the forensics.

Of course it is possible that the tape came from another store in another town which had the same batch. However, at the end of the day, it comes down to *reasonable* doubt, probability and some reasonable assumptions.

Pity the Ramseys had to behave in such an evasive manner. There is clearly insufficient evidence to incriminate them and if they had co-operated fully and offered polygraph tests, they would have been exonerated in the public eye.

This case is a mystery of global interest BECAUSE of the Ramseys' behaviour post murder.
Saying the tape must have been purchased in Boulder is the same as saying JBR must have been killed by someone who lived in the house. Since neither Boulder or JBR's house are closed systems (Boulder has highways in and out, JBR's house has windows and doors) it remains more a speculation and less an assumption.

If the batch has been identified, then the only safe assumption is that the tape was likely purchased at one of many stores to which the 'identified batch' was shipped. Even that's an assumption, since the tape could've fallen off the truck!
 
This all brings to mind a mention in ST's book. He stopped a car, driven by a man with Colorado tags, after spotting him at Jonbenet's grave. He found the guy to have "interesting" things in his vehicle, a lot of blank tapes. (not sure what else..memory fails..anyone else remember??) Interestingly, JIMO, was the guy had connections to both CO..GA..and was stationed "he claimed" in the Carolinas. Maybe Steve was getting close!
I would think, if the Ramseys made the purchase of these items, they would eventually have been sourced to them, through packaging ,sealing, ...something. Did anyone look at the photographer , the dance studio, the pageant set ups, to see if this tape was a "match"? It doesn't look like it would have many industrial uses, only "soft" ones, perhaps it's not reflecting light would put the use more in photography than in electrical wiring?
http://www.thetapeworks.com/which_tape.htm
 
sissi said:
This all brings to mind a mention in ST's book. He stopped a car, driven by a man with Colorado tags, after spotting him at Jonbenet's grave. He found the guy to have "interesting" things in his vehicle, a lot of blank tapes. (not sure what else..memory fails..anyone else remember??) Interestingly, JIMO, was the guy had connections to both CO..GA..and was stationed "he claimed" in the Carolinas. Maybe Steve was getting close!
I would think, if the Ramseys made the purchase of these items, they would eventually have been sourced to them, through packaging ,sealing, ...something. Did anyone look at the photographer , the dance studio, the pageant set ups, to see if this tape was a "match"? It doesn't look like it would have many industrial uses, only "soft" ones, perhaps it's not reflecting light would put the use more in photography than in electrical wiring?
http://www.thetapeworks.com/which_tape.htm
"...not reflecting light" is also why criminals buy black.

Just thought I'd throw that in.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Saying the tape must have been purchased in Boulder is the same as saying JBR must have been killed by someone who lived in the house. Since neither Boulder or JBR's house are closed systems (Boulder has highways in and out, JBR's house has windows and doors) it remains more a speculation and less an assumption.

If the batch has been identified, then the only safe assumption is that the tape was likely purchased at one of many stores to which the 'identified batch' was shipped. Even that's an assumption, since the tape could've fallen off the truck!
Do you understand probability and how we use it in everyday life to make decisions?
 
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/gafferstape.html

found this..
the division of permacel that makes gaffers tape has been bought by shurtape in hickory nc and production of the permacel 665 has been moved to nc after permacel closed its new jersey production facility. specs are the same, but there are clearly some differences in the finish, as least as it appers to my eye

I'm not sure if the BPD has it right? Do they have their dates right? Can we trust it was made in Hickory in '96 and not Jersey?

I agree, HOTYH, a good choice for a criminal, yet, a bit more expensive than common black tape , it has defined usages, camera's ,lighting, etc. How would a criminal , or should I say why would a criminal pick gaffers over duct? Unless our criminal is a photographer, or he sets up stages?
 
Jayelles said:
Do you consider it at all feasible that an intruder might have used cord and duct tape purchased by the Ramseys in Jonbenet's murder and then removed them both in case they had forensic evidence on them?

Can we establish whether the RST would accept the cord and duct tape being PURCHASED by the Ramseys - but just not used by them?


Jayelles,

What you are suggesting is likely what occurred, RST probably would not accept this since it still leaves the R's in the frame, as there is no get out clause.

There is no evidence on the table to demonstrate JonBenet's murder was premeditated, so to propose the purchase of a Homicide Kit in advance, feeds straight into the tabloid imagination.

Another possibility is that either the cord or/and the tape originated elsewhere and were intended for wholly innocent objectives.

If this was an intruder and he/she had access to a roll of tape and cord then JonBenet would have been taped up, then bound with the cord, but since she was dead/silenced first, the tape was not required, it is an afterthought of someone engaged in staging!

What would be really interesting is to hear FW's opinion about the tape, he certainly seemed to find it of some relevance?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,992
Total visitors
2,116

Forum statistics

Threads
590,017
Messages
17,929,039
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top