Let's deal with the Cord and Duct Tape

Yeah, and suspects/guilty criminals don't tell the truth all the time, either.

But the only time we heard about John's sweater fibers found in the genital area where JonBenet was wiped down after the molestation, before her pants were pulled back up, was in the Atlanta 2000 interviews. It was pretty big news, as it was the first and only time we heard this.

Of course, John said it was BS. Who was lying?

Well, we know that several good sources say there were dark fibers in the genital area. Smit said that he thought they came from the duvet in the suitcase, I believe. CBI said they "were consistent with" fibers from the duvet, as well. But the FBI said nope, not so.

As always. Just more confusion. Either the fibers are consistent or they're not. How two forensic bureaus can't agree on that, I have no idea. But it's indicative of every sorry piece of work in this case.

So...LE says in Atlanta the dark fibers came from John's sweater. John says no. If John was there, or sent in the wrong sweater to LE, he would know if LE was lying, wouldn't he? He also knows if he was not involved in the murder, but if he sent in the correct sweater, who's to say the killer diidn't use it on JonBenet, or that the fibers didn't get transferred? So how can John KNOW unless he sent the wrong sweater or he knows WHAT WAS USED?

On the other hand, we have the CBI saying the fibers came from the duvet in the suitcase. Smit likes that theory. He thinks the killer tried to put JonBenet in the suitcase. The suitcase has figured into this case quite a lot. There was a child's book inside it, and the duvet and suitcase belonged to JAR, complete with semen on the duvet. Innocent enough if it was not cleaned and then stored in the basement to get it out of the way. But what about that children's book? Some know what the title is. They won't say. Makes it seem very incriminating to me. Hiding things always means they look bad for someone.

But the FBI says the fibers from the duvet AREN'T consistent with those found on the genitals. Did the FBI find John's sweater fibers were consistent with those found on the crotch? Kane did not hand the forensic report over to Wood on this, though Wood asked for it, I believe.

Two LE sources allege that the fibers came from two different sources. No wonder this case never had a chance.

 

The whole thing, in a nutshell, is that all the garbage the RST throws out there is never challenged by any of the investigators who know better, so the spin continues, unchallenged in the media.

It will never happen in this case, but if there had been a court case, every single bit of the spin would have been challenged in court with the very same reasoning that can be found right here on FFJ. Does the RST really think they would get away with giving only their biased side in court? Even a mediocre lawyer would shred their so-called evidence.

It's really a travesty that it never got to court, and the RST has been allowed to try the case in public using lies and spin. It's a travesty that no one who had the authority would make the effort to counter the spin. This has been, and still remains, one of the most corrupted murder cases in the history of this country.

 

"You cannot count on an interview as information on the police's part. They can and will lie in order to get the information they need, and in this case a confession. Can this be found in any other source other than the interview? I have read quite a few books on the case and have yet to see this anywhere else but in this interview you have pointed out."

Actually, I CAN count this as information, SeekingJustice. I had a feeling you would say that, so I came prepared for just such an occasion.

Mr. Levin is not police. He's a prosecutor for the DA's office. That means that he is bound to fact in a way that police are not. If you like, I can give you the rulebook itself, but allow me to summarize by saying that if he or Kane or Morrissey in any way knowingly misrepresented, they could face losing their law licenses. Now, you really don't think they'd be stupid enough to do that on tape, do you?

 

This is from SuperDave's post over at the websleuths site-

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1112548&postcount=69


-Tea

 

That's my boy!

 

Dauumn! Very clevah gutter gossips you two are, Punisher and Tea!

I think you won the point! I'm convinced!

Elle, the competition is moving in on you. Not that I think Punisher wants to be Guttah Queen for a Day, but Tea seems to be hot on your trail!

Good work! Bam!

Sorry, Seeking Justice, you lose. :newbie:

 

"Not that I think Punisher wants to be Guttah Queen for a Day"

Please! Not that!

 

King of the Castle? I think that is a SUPER idea!

Luv-
RR

 

Super indeed!

 

Even so you still have this problem: Killer touches JonBenet's clothes which has fibers from Patsy's sweater on it... Patsy put JB to bed ... The fibers transfer to the gloves (hands ... whatever) which are then used to make the garrote ... I think you get where this is going ...

I'm not saying this to be a pain, I'm simply playing the role of a good defense attorney ...

I may be a :newbie: KoldKase, but I am not ignorant to how the system works. The prosecution would look good for maybe a few minutes after presenting that evidence ... I'm sure that you have heard the phrase "the best offense is a good defense." When working a case like this you have to think like a defense attorney. Sure, I agree at face value that evidence looks very damning. I'm not saying this as a RDI or IDI ... Could the fiber be there because the Ramseys killed her? Absolutely! But that isn't the question I am asking. I am asking if you can prove it.

 

What you say here is true, most likely, in most any case SeekingJustice. Jurors are required to use good sense when there is no video tape of the crime to prove exactly what happened. If I were on a jury though my thoughts may be more in the direction of how many fibers would I realistically believe were transferred from bedroom to basement to paint tray to cord to duct tape without the origin (that being Patsy's sweater) of those fibers also traveling right along that same distance.

Little

 

Yes, SJ, you have a point that we all acknowledge: lots of evidence leading to the Ramseys is moot by itself because the Ramseys lived there, handled JonBenet when putting her to bed, etc.

This is exactly why most people who believe the RDI lean towards Patsy: the evidence that she wrote the note, which was written on her own pad with her own pen, is way beyond a reasonable doubt. The time involved in the entire crime puts the killer at ease spending a lot of time in the home. Put that with the fibers tied in the garrote knots, the paint brush, etc., and you've got a case, as Little says: it's the BODY of evidence.

But any decent defense attorney could argue that one of the other two in the home at least committed part of the crime--the worst part. That's reasonable doubt. That's why the Ramseys ALL had separate attorneys. You're a student of criminal investigation, I believe: learn this tactic, as it's nothing new, and it has been used before and will be again. Once LE allowed the crime scene to get out of control that morning, once the DA handed over evidence to the Ramsey attorneys up front and BEFORE they would agree to be questioned formally, when the DA made EXCUSES for not getting phone records and clothing subpoenaed immediately...it was all over. The evidence was there to get a true result about what happened that night...but the DA gave it away. You can't deal with the weaknesses in a case if you don't nail down the evidence BEFORE the criminals know what it is and get their stories lined up, tamper with and/or destroy what LE doesn't have, etc.

So...here we are, twiddling our thumbs while Jason Midyette lies in his grave, with HIS PARENTS never even BROUGHT IN FOR QUESTIONING.

That's just wrong.

But I digress....

 

I agree. The case was doomed from the very beginning. They let the Ramseys wealth get in the way of them doing their job ... heaven forbid we have offended / angry rich people ... That is what kills me. It would almost be impossible to prove either way. The defense strategies are the same either way ... If you charge an outsider you blame the Ramseys ... If you charge the Ramseys you blame an outsider. There is just enough reasonable doubt on both sides.

 

Gosh I just never believed there was reasonable doubt where the Ramsey's were concerned. Actually I've always been baffled as to WHY the Ram's were never arrested and charged with the crime. No evidence of an intruder, father finds the body, specialist 99% sure mother wrote the ransom note, father's shirt fibers on dead child's crotch area and fibers from mom's top on tape and meshed with the garotte rope. Sounds like a lot of evidence to me.

 

Sounds like a lot of GOOD evidence to me too, tylin!
I didn't think there was reasonable doubt either, but Lou Smit was responsible for creating the birth of the invisible intruder, and in turn created "reasonable doubt."

 

Because it happened in Boulder? And rich people, like the Ramseys, or the Midyettes, don't really kill their children, do they? Not really...

In Boulder, only a confession would have brought this case to trial. No one wanted to prosecute, so JonBenet didn't have an advocate from the beginning. The DA is supposed to take on that role for victims of crime, but not in Boulder. In Boulder, the DA helps the criminals.

 

The reasonable doubt campaign was not written by Lou Smit, sure he added to script, but he most certainly didn't write it. BPD is responsible for a lot of the questions we have today because they didn't do their job. They let the Ramseys money and position in society run the investigation. Heaven forbid they offend the rich. IF they wouldn't have abandoned protocol we likely wouldn't be sitting here talking about this because the case would have been solved. Going by what most of you believe today, the cops would have had plenty of evidence against the Ramseys if the body had not have been moved and if they had separated them immediately and questioned them. Unfortunately, the body was moved not once, but twice, and neither of the Ramseys were questioned together or separately until months later. That isn't Lou's fault folk. You can thank BPD for that. Had they have done their job there would have been no need in the DA calling in Lou, or anyone else for that matter, in this case. Lou isn't the one who started this domino effect. Sure he is involved, but BPD made proving his case a heck of a lot easier.

 

Yes, I hear you, BUT it was Lou Smit who brought the intruder theory to life
according to Steve Thomas.

Bolding mine.

 

And, the cops had been trained right out of intense police work in favor of "sensitivity" training. Not that there weren't still some good cops on the force (a la Steve Thomas) but they weren't backed up by administration nor the DA's office, and I'm sure they knew that if they made a mistake, they were out on their own limb and sawing.

Enough mistakes were made to share the blame. I think Lou Smit bears a huge amount of responsibility, because he had the street cred to force the case back in the right direction, and he chose the wrong direction.

 

Frustrating heymom, wasn't it?