Who is Van Tassel, you might ask. The better question is, what is Van Tassel? According to his old website, Van Tassel is: “John Van Tassel Garibaldi Highlands, British Columbia Country: Canada Gender : Male Age : 54 Education : Post Secondary courses - Law Enforcement Comments : I am a Forensic Identification Specialist with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, North Vancouver Forensic Identification Section. I will be going to the Nederlands in the late Fall to lecture on Forensic Knot Analysis. I would like to be able to communicate with basic phrases.†What John Van Tassel is is reveled in a Nov. 30, 1997 RMN article by Carla Crowder. “Ramsey case knots examined Canadian rope expert spends week looking for signature clues to JonBenet's killer†What did this imported “expert†have to offer†“Boulder police have asked an international expert in knots, ropes and ligatures to help in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. John Van Tassel, a corporal in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, spent seven days in Colorado. He flew down from Vancouver, British Columbia, on Nov. 10 and stayed through Nov. 16, he said Tuesday. As a forensic knot analyst, Van Tassel, 49, studies the kinds of knots and ligature materials found at a crime scene, hoping to find clues about the person who tied the knot. Van Tassel was tight-lipped about his work in Boulder, but he did say he is still analyzing the evidence in the Ramsey case. "I have not formulated any opinion or conclusion as of yet,'' As far as I know, the left without ever rendering an opinion. If he did, you can bet it’s nonsense. “There are several things Van Tassel looks into when examining knots and ligatures from a murder scene: Are the knots linked to a job or a hobby, say fishing or knitting? -Are similar kinds of knots found among a suspect's possessions? -Has a witness observed a suspect tying the kinds of knots found in evidence?†Did he expect to find a match in a Boy Scout Manual? How many such manuals teach “garroting†or “masochism†if that was what he was looking for? Similar kinds of knots†What if there are no “similar kinds†to be found? Suppose this is a one of a kind circumstance? Oh, I guess the perpetrator is going to go around trying to duplicate the knots and somebody might see it. Geesh! “Most of what he finds is used as "supportive circumstantial evidence,'' Van Tassel said. Or it might provide the impetus for investigators to rule out certain suspects, he said. Sometimes the smallest bit of knot information can reveal significant traits of the tier. "For example, the more knots you have and the more consistent they are can tell you that the tier ties the same kinds of knots,'' Van Tassel said. In seven years of studying ropes and knots, Van Tassel has investigated knots and ligatures in more than 50 cases. Most have involved deaths -- either homicides, suicides or sadomasochistic activities. Boulder did not pay Van Tassel for his work. He is paid by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where he has been an officer for 25 years.†Oh good, he’s been an officer for 25 years. Whoopie, the Lou Smit of the north and knothead of knot world. Just exactly what was his “forensic training in knots?†I can tell you: read and regurgitate, copy and paste, try to match pictures and play word games of pretense that he knows what he’s doing. One thing for sure, he has little to no practical experience with knots. He has no viable concept of the physics involved. His reputation is meaningless paper. Just about any farm kid, male or female, from six years old up from my part of the woods would have looked at that mess and laughed at the idea of it being difficult to grasp. It would be known in seconds that the person who did this was either joking, or else didn’t have a clue as to what he or she was doing. Given the circumstance, it wasn’t a joke. What does this leave and why? If Van Tassel had known what he was doing, he could have been and would have been an important witness for the prosecution. As it turned out, his ignorance paraded as expertise served the Ramsey cause. This “expert†idiot, left the door wide open for idiots like Smit to come in with the “expertise†of “sophisticatedâ€, “complex†and “intricate garrote. This was followed by other “experts†who came up with theories of sex games and strangulation. Many books were written incorporating this nonsense as fact. Is it any wonder that the general public is ignorant of the facts of the case? While you are creating a category of crocks such as 48 HOURS, THE EARLY SHOW, DATELINE, etc., but sure to include EVERYTHING the general public has heard and read about the professional garroteâ€, “sadistic pedophile†and “murder by strangulation.â€
This analysis would also be appropriately applied to Lou Smit. He has been touted as an expert on crime scenes, including knot tying, DNA, shoeprint/handprint forensics, fiber forensics, handwriting, yada yada. Just because a homicide detective spends years investigating homicides doesn't necessarily qualify him/her as an "expert" in any of the intricacies of modern criminal science. http://www.uia-pi.org/UIA-Experience.htm While experience does count for some things, it's funny how society will regard a LE officer as an "expert" at just about anything having to do with criminal law. It would be interesting to know what degrees, if any, and what specialized training the RST possesses in order to qualify themselves as "experts." Perhaps Mr. Smit is a suma cum laude graduate of the ultra secretive government program "Intruder Science 101." :fishslap: Excellent post, EW!
Deja Nu: “This analysis would also be appropriately applied to Lou Smit.†It certainly does. I’m amazed at the absolute drivel from Smit that is seriously considered by many. “ But it's funny how society will regard a LE officer as an "expert" at just about anything having to do with criminal law.†Right again. I’m, sure you recall the Carnes’ ruling wherein she set Smit as an “expert†in every field without qualifying him in ANY field. I am also sure you noticed she was way out of her jurisdiction when she more or less adjudged the Ramsey innocent. Saying that DH didn’t prove his case was one thing, but what she added was unconscionable. A severe reprimand was in order, but I’m sure she didn’t get it since the Ramseys seem to running all facets of the law and the media as well. After initially looking into the case and reading just the autopsy report and the “ransom noteâ€, it was hard to believe there was still serious discussion about an alleged intruder. This was my notice as to what mentalities I was dealing with and a warning to just forget it. As you know, I didn’t heed the warning. The only redeeming feature I can find in my efforts is I have meet some very nice folk, you included, of course. In one post, you said something to the effect that you felt you were conducting a course in law. A poster aptly responded, “And doing a good job of it.†Having personally done thousands of hours of legal research and document preparation, I can really evaluate, appreciate, and admire your know how in the legal area. Many times, you have filled in gaps in my knowledge of a given legal circumstance. Thanks.
Thanks, EW, for those kind words. It's true, the Ramsey case seems to have brought out all the stupidity in the system. Judge Carnes went way out on a limb in her ruling, one that easily breaks with the slightest wind. Darnay Hoffman stipulated to "facts already in evidence" that were never qualified as "facts" or that could be validated in any way (God knows Lou Smit has been trying for 8 years to do so without success). And Lou Smit was tagged an "expert" on everything evenly remotely related to the Ramsey case without challenge. The entire Ramsey case is a law school study in professional incompetence and the dangers of political and business incest in a small legal community (whether Boulder or Georgia). LW has never tried a case before a jury in his entire career. His only successful tactic is his ability to abuse his adversaries and Dominick Dunne's case is no exception. No legal skill is required. Why has this case continually been so bizarre? I think my son said it perfectly when he said this case, unlike so many others, literally attracts evil. Not only was a beautiful, full-of-promise, privileged child tragically killed, but every wicked thing has this way come as a result. One has to ask why, why is this case so different? Why is it such a magnet for all the worst the world has to offer? The only answer could be that evil has its season, but only a season, and soon, very soon, it's utter defeat will be revealed.