Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[DeeDee249]

You are right...If PR hugged JonBenet her shirt fibers could had transfer from there...Just really been thinking if skin cells can innocently be transfer so can fibers...

When Patsy threw herself on JB's body, it was covered with a blanket. The tape has been left in the basement. The garrote cord was at the back of JB's neck and she was lying face UP under the blanket, so no way Patsy's fibers could have gotten on the tape and cord.
If Patsy hugged her BEFORE her death, well JB didn't have the tape and cord.
The same goes for JR's shirt fibers inside the panties. When he carried her body upstairs, she was wearing the longjohns. His shirt fibers couldn't have gotten INSIDE her panty crotch through the longjohns which by the way, did not have his shirt fibers from that shirt (worn the day/night of the murder).
There is NO way to explain away the presence of parental fibers in THOSE THREE PLACES.

 

[DeeDee249]

Parents fibers don't belong in JBR's underwear, yet unknown male DNA is OK there, mixed with blood no less. Is that what you think?


Please tell me you're not serious.



You're right. Fibers are not birds.

Fibers are transferred from one surface to another, depending on the nature of the surface. JBR's clothing, skin, bedding, and hair would be a collector of parental fiber. Once there, these fibers can contaminate anything. Now you'll be inferring the quantity of fibers based on the interviews, I guess.

While fibers can be transferred, this also proves that Patsy and JR were THERE and actively involved with the staging. There is no other way for their fibers to have gotten entwined in the knot of the garrote (not just lying on top of the cord) or on the inside of the tape, or inside the panties (yet not on the longjohns, which both parents admitted touching).
You keep missing the point- possibly deliberately) . It isn't parental fibers on the child or her clothes. It is parental fibers on the three items that are EXCLUSIVE to the crime- the tape, garrote knot and redressed panties. Anywhere else, yes. Those three places, NO.
And I can't believe you don't see the difference and understand why those three areas prove their presence with the body. (not just the child- the DYING/DEAD child.)

 

[Ravyn]

When Patsy threw herself on JB's body, it was covered with a blanket. The tape has been left in the basement. The garrote cord was at the back of JB's neck and she was lying face UP under the blanket, so no way Patsy's fibers could have gotten on the tape and cord.
If Patsy hugged her BEFORE her death, well JB didn't have the tape and cord.
The same goes for JR's shirt fibers inside the panties. When he carried her body upstairs, she was wearing the longjohns. His shirt fibers couldn't have gotten INSIDE her panty crotch through the longjohns which by the way, did not have his shirt fibers from that shirt (worn the day/night of the murder).
There is NO way to explain away the presence of parental fibers in THOSE THREE PLACES.

And I'm not talking about the time she threw herself on top of JonBenet...At any give time before the murder, at the White's party,JonBenet could have snuggled with PR and her jacket fibers could had stuck in JonBenet's hair and then when the garrote was tied then the fibers could had been there without PR being present...And if the DNA can be innocently transfer why not the fibers..

 

[BOESP]

And I'm not talking about the time she threw herself on top of JonBenet...At any give time before the murder, at the White's party,JonBenet could have snuggled with PR and her jacket fibers could had stuck in JonBenet's hair and then when the garrote was tied then the fibers could had been there without PR being present...And if the DNA can be innocently transfer why not the fibers..

The fibers certainly could be innocently transferred. The thing is the probability of fibers from clothing worn by both Patsy and John on the night of her killing being found in secluded places on JonBenet's person and being found in the paint tray as well. Patsy said she had never worn her garment in the basement or around the paint tray. The type, number, and location of fibers is compelling.

DNA found in degraded quality and as touch DNA only on two adjoining surfaces (the panty and long john) and not found elsewhere is interesting. Why not find touch DNA all over the place on JonBenet? Is it likely an Intruder or other person took off gloves to pull up the long johns then put gloves back on immediately? There likely should be touch DNA all over the place if the contributor was involved in the crime.

 

[BBB167893]

But wait! The fibers were found in a garrote comprised of rope that was never found in the R's home. So, if I understand your reasoning, it's possible for an intruder to bring in the rope, do the deed AND get R fibers tied in the garrote? All this after writing the epic novel of an RN? Simply fascinating!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

He says the fibers prove nothing. They prove EVERYTHING.

 

[BBB167893]

1) You said it yourself: If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it. Well, I realize it's been a while since I looked over my high school civics book, but last I knew, it's not the DA's job to decide who did it. That's SUPPOSED to be up to a jury. That's why we have trials. Can you even IMAGINE what it would be like if prosecutors around the country took it upon themselves to act the way the Boulder DA's office has acted, not just in this case, but in others? I would not wish to live in such a society, and I suspect neither would you.From SD


See why did Lacy believed she had the power to do what she did...And funny in one interview she said no one can be cleared unless they are convicted...But what was she thinking with that letter..And I thought also that is why we have people on a jury...But it would be scary if prosecutors done this around the world...

At least SOMEONE understands!

 

[BBB167893]

Parents' fibers do not belong on the tape and cord and the inside of the panties IF the parents claim they never saw their daughter in the basement. The tape, cord, and panties all were placed on JB in the basement. Fibers do not "migrate" INSIDE a pair of panties UNDER a pair of longjohns nor do the migrate down to a basement. Patsy claims she never wore that jacket in the basement (she actually said this to LE). When Patsy saw JB she was already covered with a blanket, remember? So I'd say there was something remarkable about the parents' fibers being found in those three places.

:clap: :clap:

"Consistent with" is the term always used is forensic tests for fibers. It will stand up in court. Unless the item is a one-of-a-kind, that it the only classification that can me made. Even in a one-of-a-kind sweater, the yarn used may not be one-of-a-kind. So this is pretty standard. The difference may seem BIG to you, but in court, "consistent with" can close a case.

Exactly. "Consistent with"="you're scr**ed." Even Lou Smit admitted it was bad for them.

Oh, and for the record, just in case anyone is listening, Kane and Levin could NOT lie during those interviews, because if they did, they'd be disbarred.

 

[BBB167893]

BOESP, DeeDee, Ravyn: your points about the fibers are clever and nuanced. Which means they won't make a dent!

 

[USARDOG]

I've mentioned this before, too. Of course they should have found Patsy's DNA there- Patsy admitted putting the longjohns on JB that night.
That unknown DNA could have come from any male at the party that night, including children. All that "unknown" male would have to do is shake hands with Patsy, who admitted she put the longjohns on JB. Or that "unknown" male could have been at the party and touched a doorknob, toilet handle, anything.

Ah, but wasn't the "unknown male's" DNA in blood in JBR's panties? So, the "unknown male" must have done more than shake hands with Patsy.

IMO, it is only a matter of time before the "unknown male" does something else bad, gets caught, they get his DNA into the data base, and it turns up a match in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Ah, but wasn't the "unknown male's" DNA in blood in JBR's panties? So, the "unknown male" must have done more than shake hands with Patsy.

It's a bit more complicated than that, USARDOG.

IMO, it is only a matter of time before the "unknown male" does something else bad, gets caught, they get his DNA into the data base, and it turns up a match in this case.

That's kind of the point we're making: it's been 13+ years and not one case even remotely resembling this one has occurred. That's as good an indication there is that there won't BE another one.

IOWs, don't hold your breath.

 

[Ravyn]

:clap: :clap:



Exactly. "Consistent with"="you're scr**ed." Even Lou Smit admitted it was bad for them.

Oh, and for the record, just in case anyone is listening, Kane and Levin could NOT lie during those interviews, because if they did, they'd be disbarred.

Like this..


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.

0202
8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.



Now see there are questions about the fibers which PR and JR could not talk about, and everytime I really try to see innocent transfer of fibers,this interview keep coming to mind and really why,tell them not to answer the questions....

 

[DeeDee249]

The words "and I understand you are not going to answer that" say more than Patsy ever could. Those words SCREAM Patsy's involvement.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ah, but wasn't the "unknown male's" DNA in blood in JBR's panties? So, the "unknown male" must have done more than shake hands with Patsy.

IMO, it is only a matter of time before the "unknown male" does something else bad, gets caught, they get his DNA into the data base, and it turns up a match in this case.

Not exactly correct. It was unknown male DNA found in the panties mixed with JB's blood. The blood belonged to JB only. The male DNA was not blood. That may seem like a small detail but it puts a different spin on it. The male DNA could have been there previously, in an innocent transfer (as in packing/manufacture) and JB bled over the DNA. There was not a lot of blood- it was a few droplets. This is the reason why I feel it points to the panties being put on her as she was dying or dead. There was evidence found in the autopsy with a black light test that indicated blood was wiped from her thighs and pubic area. That would indicate she bled more than a few drops. So the original panties (never found) may have had much more blood on them than a few drops. This would require fresh panties, and there was a new pack right there in the basement, wrapped as a gift for JB's older cousin. Patsy freely admitted buying these large-size panties for her niece, so there is no mistaking that is why they were so large. It also explains the partially unwrapped gifts found right there in the basement (in the wineceller, as a matter if fact- a filthy, moldy room that NO ONE would ever store or wrap gifts in). The fact that unwrapped gifts were found in that filthy room, where JB was also found, indicates the boxes were brought to the body so they could be searched. They couldn't risk going upstairs to find JB's own panties in case BR woke up, so luckily for them, they realized there were new panties right there. By the way, NO intruder, even one who may have known the Rs, would know that there were new panties wrapped up in one of those gift boxes.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The words "and I understand you are not going to answer that" say more than Patsy ever could. Those words SCREAM Patsy's involvement.

Fortunately for justice sake, cooler heads prevail. Some of us need more information.

There's this pesky little detail in our system called due diligence. I can see that has been a tremendous setback for RDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Like this..


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.

0202
8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.



Now see there are questions about the fibers which PR and JR could not talk about, and everytime I really try to see innocent transfer of fibers,this interview keep coming to mind and really why,tell them not to answer the questions....

This either shows ignorance on the part of the questioners as to fiber evidence, or they were trying their luck, seeing if PR would incriminate herself.

5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers

We believe? ML isn't lying when she says she believes the DNA belongs to an intruder. Is ML right? Is Mr. Levin right? The statement 'we believe' isn't a statement of fact. They said that they believed something, thats all. They did NOT say: "We know for a fact that your fibers were on JBR and that you put them there. How did you do that?"

11 the question is, can she explain to us how

How could PR explain a secondary transfer? How would she know? The questioner is obviously fishing for a primary transfer explanation, when a secondary transfer explanation is more than possible in each of the specified locations. Is PR qualified to answer? Does she even know all the possible means by which fibers can move from one object to another? Would PR be fooled into believing that the only answers they would consider for her own fibers are primary transfer answers?

Its a cheap trick that didn't really work. Unlike unknown male DNA in CODIS, I doubt PR fibers even exist as described in this interview, and I know RDI can't even prove that they do.

Its just another myth.


17 that match one of the two shirts that was

There is no such thing as fibers that match. Only fibers 'consistent with'.

Is Mr. Levin a fiber expert and if not should he have been asking a fiber expert instead of PR?

 

[nobull]

BOESP, DeeDee, Ravyn: your points about the fibers are clever and nuanced. Which means they won't make a dent!

Indeed! Contrary to myself who takes the in-your-face approach. :dance:

 

[BBB167893]

Fortunately for justice sake, cooler heads prevail. Some of us need more information.

There's this pesky little detail in our system called due diligence. I can see that has been a tremendous setback for RDI.

HOTYH...are you SERIOUS? And I ask that question as a general inquiry to everything you've put forth in this posting. RDI is the ONLY side that bothered to do any actual work. IDIs went around making hasty conclusions with all of the circumspection of wild bulls. It's a long list, and I've got plenty of time!

This either shows ignorance on the part of the questioners as to fiber evidence,

HIGHLY unlikely, given that Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrisey were all experienced prosecutors with winning records who knew how to put cases together.

or they were trying their luck, seeing if PR would incriminate herself.

1) They cannot "try their luck" as you put it. The canons of ethics do not allow a state representative to make false statements.

2) They were giving her a chance to explain them innocently. She could not. That's what DeeDee is trying to say.

3) She DID incriminate herself, HOTYH. That's the whole point. Watch the tape if you can find it. When he tells her where the fibers came from, she swoons like she's about to pass out. Then, two years later, when she was given another chance, this time by CBS news, she not only admitted they were hers, but said that the fibers got their when she threw herself on JB's body. But that can't be, because JR had already written in their book that JB's body was covered up by a second blanket when that happened. This is borne out by the police report as revealed by FOX News.

Now you think about that: she had two full years to think about her answer, and all she could come up with was yet another inconsistency. I hope she asked her lawyer for her money back if she gave him any.

I realize I'm no legal expert, but that sounds pretty damn incriminating to me!

5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers

We believe? ML isn't lying when she says she believes the DNA belongs to an intruder. Is ML right? Is Mr. Levin right?

Well, I guess it comes down to credibility. How many murder cases with circumstantial evidence did ML take to trial? To my knowledge, NONE. That's only one issue in that regard.

11 the question is, can she explain to us how

How could PR explain a secondary transfer? How would she know?

Because there

wasn't

a secondary transfer. Another prosecutor who isn't afraid to actually prosecute crkminals, Wendy Murphy, said explicitly that it would require, and I quote, "flat-out magic" for a secondary transfer to happen as PR described it. What's that you say? You don't believe me? Okay, maybe you'll believe Lou Smit, who admitted that the fibers are a big problem. I quote:

Interviewer: Are the fibers incriminating?

LS: Sure.

Out of the mouth of IDIs, and all that.

The questioner is obviously fishing for a primary transfer explanation,

Which we got later on.

when a secondary transfer explanation is more than possible in each of the specified locations.

I doubt that very much.

Is PR qualified to answer? Does she even know all the possible means by which fibers can move from one object to another?

She had two years to converse with her lawyers about it. What do you suppose she did with them all that time, give baking lessons?

Would PR be fooled into believing that the only answers they would consider for her own fibers are primary transfer answers?

I reckon so, since she did! Which means one of two things:

1) She slipped up.

2) She really was as stupid as IDI makes her out to be.

Its a cheap trick that didn't really work.

It DID work. PR's "explanation" gave the whole game away.

Unlike unknown male DNA in CODIS, I doubt PR fibers even exist as described in this interview,[/QUOTE]

I don't. Again, it helps to take a larger view of the issue. Fortunately, I do exactly that in chapter three. A five-year-old could understand it the way I outline it.

and I know RDI can't even prove that they do.

Oh, YEAH?! Just you watch me!

Q. Frequently would be three or four times -- I mean, was it, if you are chilly, was this the item that you always threw on? That is what I am getting at.

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. You talked about, in your '98 interview, that you, on the 24th, that you were in the basement and you were wrapping presents. Do you know, when you were doing that, whether or not you had on that item?

A. I don't know.

Q. You have told us that you painted as a hobby. Would you wear this item to
paint?

A. No.

Here's another:

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.

Then of course, we have PR's own statement from October 2002 to CBS. It's not pretty.

Its just another myth.

Don't you wish.

17 that match one of the two shirts that was

There is no such thing as fibers that match. Only fibers 'consistent with'.

If you ask someone who knows the ins and outs of this stuff (and I HAVE), they'll tell you that consistent with = you're scr**ed!

Is Mr. Levin a fiber expert and if not should he have been asking a fiber expert instead of PR?

From what Kane says in the interview, they DID ask a fiber expert before they flew out to Atlanta to ask her.

Just call me Sgt. Dave-owitz, the Bear RDI.

 

[USARDOG]

Not exactly correct. It was unknown male DNA found in the panties mixed with JB's blood. The blood belonged to JB only. The male DNA was not blood. That may seem like a small detail but it puts a different spin on it. The male DNA could have been there previously, in an innocent transfer (as in packing/manufacture) and JB bled over the DNA. There was not a lot of blood- it was a few droplets. This is the reason why I feel it points to the panties being put on her as she was dying or dead. There was evidence found in the autopsy with a black light test that indicated blood was wiped from her thighs and pubic area. That would indicate she bled more than a few drops. So the original panties (never found) may have had much more blood on them than a few drops. This would require fresh panties, and there was a new pack right there in the basement, wrapped as a gift for JB's older cousin. Patsy freely admitted buying these large-size panties for her niece, so there is no mistaking that is why they were so large. It also explains the partially unwrapped gifts found right there in the basement (in the wineceller, as a matter if fact- a filthy, moldy room that NO ONE would ever store or wrap gifts in). The fact that unwrapped gifts were found in that filthy room, where JB was also found, indicates the boxes were brought to the body so they could be searched. They couldn't risk going upstairs to find JB's own panties in case BR woke up, so luckily for them, they realized there were new panties right there. By the way, NO intruder, even one who may have known the Rs, would know that there were new panties wrapped up in one of those gift boxes.

My statement does not suppose that it was the unknown males blood, just that there was unknown male dna recovered from that blood. To make your statement accurate, that same unknown male would have had to package JBR used, and previously washed pajamas, as the same unknown male dna was recovered from those. Of course, this is an impossibility.

Further, you suppose that the basement was "filthy, moldy room." As much money as these people had, I'd be surprised to find ANYTHING in their house that was "filthy or moldy".

Last, it is not unusual for parents to hide presents in odd locations before Christmas. Quite lucky for the killer, but not out of the realm of possibility IMO.

I do not believe the killer was a stranger to the family, but I am not convinced in the least that the killer was Patsy, or that she has anything to do with the killing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI is the ONLY side that bothered to do any actual work.

This is a 'generalization'. When we actually discuss the facts of the case, it turns out that the only quantifiable progress relates to the DNA. This is inarguable, and is in opposition to your statement.

IOW you're wrong and I don't mind telling you.

HIGHLY unlikely, given that Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrisey were all experienced prosecutors with winning records who knew how to put cases together.

Who cares if they were prosecutors, that wasn't the question. Are they fiber experts, and if so why do they need PR to tell them if it was primary or secondary transfer?

1) They cannot "try their luck" as you put it. The canons of ethics do not allow a state representative to make false statements.

Of course they can!

I figure thats just what they did, by some of the other $%$##$ stupid questions these 'experts' asked. Case in point:

Q. You have told us that you painted as a hobby. Would you wear this item to paint?

A. No.

Q. Would you wear that dress shirt to change the oil in your car?

A. Duh, yeah?

Interviewer: Are the fibers incriminating?

LS: Sure.

Out of the mouth of IDIs, and all that.

This demonstrates perfectly what I was referring to. Why would Levin ask fiber related questions of people who have no knowledge of fiber evidence. To make them look stupid? To get them to say stuff?

A real fiber expert would've answered no to that question.

I reckon so, since she did! Which means one of two things:

1) She slipped up.

2) She really was as stupid as IDI makes her out to be.

No. 1 is understandable. After all, thats what they were after.

I'd like you to explain No. 2 here, if you dont' mind. That is, how does IDI make PR out to be stupid?

 

[cynic]

Further, you suppose that the basement was "filthy, moldy room." As much money as these people had, I'd be surprised to find ANYTHING in their house that was "filthy or moldy".

From a deposition by Fleet White describing the room:
"a dark, dirty area" with mold growing on the floor.
(F. White 228.)