Forensic evidence

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by rashomon, Sep 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sue

    sue Member

    thanks
     
  2. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    sue

    Upon request, I will be happy to address every line in your post.
    There are a lot of questions pending. However, for the time
    being, I will address just a few items in order to keep a sharper
    focus upon THE issue.

    Sue: “Your reference to the Stansport cord is only valid for that
    cord. That doesn't mean that they didn't make other cord that was
    3/16 inch and was flat.â€

    This appears to be a challenge to prove an infinite negative.
    Unfortunately, you neglected to provide instructions as to how
    one goes about issuing such proof short of omniscience. In
    parallel, the implicit request evades the responsibility of the
    claimant to provide proof of what said claimant does claim to
    exist.

    Further, the implicit request for omni proof via omniscience is
    based on fallacy as well. I have never stated that Stansport does
    not make a 3\16 flat nylon cord. I doubt that the do, but I don’t
    declare it as fact. The actual is this:

    The crime scene cord is a narrow flat nylon apparently in the
    vicinity of 3\16 inch. Cord purchased at McGukin’s hardware and
    similar type stores is said to be a match to the crime scene
    cord; meaning the 3\16 nylon cord purchased at these stores is
    flat, not round. This is what I challenge.

    Many experiences over many decades induces me to conclude that
    these hardware type stores do not stock and sell 3\16 flat nylon.
    The conclusion is bolstered by the fact that I have been unable
    to find 3\16 flat nylon physically in a hardware store, or
    online hardware store. There are many presentation and
    advertisements of 3\16 round utility nylon cord, but not a one
    for flat. I add to this the economic evaluation of probable
    demand for 3\16 flat nylon. I conclude the likely minimal demand
    does not warrant a hardware store stocking and selling 3\16 nylon
    cord. Popular 3\16 nylon utility cord of high demand, yes, but
    not 3\16 flat. Perhaps, in some other type store, but not a
    hardware store.

    In a tentative confirmation, in spite of the potential audience
    for this discussion, the fact that no one (including you) has
    come forward and stated that he\she has seen and\or purchased
    3\16 flat nylon in hardware store, or similar kind of outlet. To
    put this in perspective, keep in mind that Steve said he
    purchased fifty samples from several hardware type stores. This
    indicates an abundant supply and easy availability, yet no one
    has pursued this advantage and with first hand knowledge informed
    me of my alleged error.

    My obvious question is: Have you looked for 3\16 Stansport flat
    nylon cord in any hardware stores, including online? If not, why
    not? If so, did you find any 3\16 Stansport flat nylon in any of
    these locations? If you made no such search, or if you did not
    find 3\16 Stansport flat nylon cord, pray tell on what basis do
    you conclude I am mistaken?

    Your answer is set in a previous post:

    Sue: “And, while I think that the police made many mistakes, I
    don't think they are stupid enough to look at a round purchased
    cord and a flat evidence cord and say they match.â€

    Faith in lieu of facts? Where have we heard that before?
     
  3. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    EasyWriter, you actually confirmed Sue's argument. For this is exactly the point which Sue made in her post, when she wrote:
    That doesn't mean that they didn't make other cord that was
    3/16 inch and was flat.”


    "Several" hardware type stores? SteveThomas only mentions two stores where he bought this type of cord: in the sporting goods section at McGuckin's and at the Army store. These are the only stores he mentions.

    But seriously, EasyWriter: both Steve Thomas and Van Tassell would have to be total idiots if they didn't notice the difference between a round cord and a flat cord, don't you think so?

    You have had e-mail contact with SteveThomas, therefore simply asking him could have cleared up what exactly he bought. Did you ever ask him in your e-mails if the cord he bought was flat or round?
     
  4. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  5. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    EasyWriter, for some reason I can't access your profile which probably has your e-mail address in it. Could you send me a PM with the address? Thanks.
    I'd be very interested in your e-mail exchange with ST, for there are many unanswered questions I have re his theory of what happened on that fatal night.
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Since I'm not sure if my PM to you came through, I will post it here. It's already in a lot of places, so one more won't hurt. delmar@strato.net
     
  7. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    EW, I got your PM and have sent an e-mail to you today. I hope it came through. If not, please let me know.
     
  8. heymom

    heymom Member

    I am going to take up your challenge, Easy Writer. Go to the thread titled The Document says it's Parachute Cord and look at the examples there. I think we've been looking in the wrong direction - this is para-cord used more in outdoor sports, not sewing cord OR merely hardware store general-purpose cording. And, it comes in 3/16" width which is actually somewhere between round and flat, to me it looks darn close to the cord around JonBenet's neck.
     
  9. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    There are several photos on the thread. Can you give me the url
    where I can find a photo and information on the cord you’re
    talking about?
     
  10. heymom

    heymom Member

    Utility Cord

    I thought it was called para-cord on this site, but it's actually titled Utility Cord, and it's made of nylon. It's not 32 strand, but 7. I wonder what kind of cord a 32 strand would be...

    You can zoom down to whatever level on this site (what a cool feature!).
     
  11. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    The link didn’t work for me. No matter since you have already
    seen it’s not a match. BTW, Home Hardware lists 27 variations of
    nylon cord. None of those match either.
     
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    The website went down for some reason. Why do you think that is not a match? Look at the weave.

    It's back up at 12:30 p.m. MT. Go check it out. Even though they don't say 32-strand, I think it's a close match. I can't find any cord that is 32-strand and I wonder who determined how many strands the cord is.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2006
  13. heymom

    heymom Member

    Here is a page from the Stansport catalog - scroll down to find Nylon Cord, 3/16 diameter, but in the photo it looks more flat than round. I believe the cord on JonBenet's neck and wrists is not round and not flat, but somewhere between, which is what this type of cord looks like. Para-cord is not like a rope and not like a shoelace, but somewhere between those two types.

    Stansport catalog
     
  14. heymom

    heymom Member

    Hey, Easy, I seem to have lost the forest for the trees - can you tell me why we are debating the type of cord used to strangle JonBenet? All I am trying to show is that the cord was widely available in Boulder and that the Ramseys most likely had some around the house. It didn't necessarily come from the paintings or the dolls, and it could have been around from either the boating recreation, the piloting of airplanes (parachute cord), or hiking in the mountains (many uses in outdoor recreation, including evidently braiding tack for horses). Whether you call it 32-strand, 7-strand, 1500 lb. strength, or whatever, there does exist a flattish, white, woven cord that comes in 3/16" diameter, that matches the weave of the cord found on JonBenet's neck. It is a common item and not difficult to find, especially in outdoor-oriented locations like Boulder.
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    HM,

    The page that came up for me didn't say what kind of cord ir was, but #N-50 is white and flat. Looks a bit like the garrote cord to me.

    Trujillo never helped Steve Thomas one bit by not having the cord he gave him, checked out. I would call that "obstruction of justice."
     
  16. heymom

    heymom Member

    Yes, that's the one I thought looked like the garotte cord. N-50. Stansport does not sell retail but that was the brand name given in the segment in Thomas' book. They called it "Coghlan's Cord" by Stansport. It runs about $3 a package now, but would have been a little less expensive in 1996.
     
  17. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  18. heymom

    heymom Member

    Okay, I understand now. I cannot hold both the crime scene cord and the Stansport or para-cord in my hand and tell if they are a match, and never will be able to. I can't unwind the crime scene cord and say if perhaps they pulled it apart down to 32 separate pieces of string, while the Stansport or other cord may be 7 strands made up of smaller strings. I can see that the weave and the width of the cords I found are similar, at least to what it amounts to, seeing them in vitual form. That's about it. The crime scene cord has been analzyed and even if Steve Thomas found what he thinks is a match, none of this cord was found in the house, correct?

    So this could not be used as evidence, no. There would be no way to tie any specific piece of cord to Patsy or any other Ramsey, so trying to prove that she could have bought the cord would be useless. She could also have bought any number of other items in McGucken's, none of which were used in the crime scene staging.

    The cord and its attributes are a red herring, at least since the Pamster went on her raid. IF the cops had found a roll of the same cord in the house, THEN it would be evidence. But as of now, it's a mere exercise in futility.

    I'm stopping! :) Sorry about the challenge. Pass the...whatever.... :abnormal:
     
  19. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  20. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Oh no, don't stop Heymom. Leaving no stone unturned is crucial when it comes to true crime discussion.

    But as for the cord match, we neend't rack our brains at all. For in the heated discussion about the type of cord, one crucial fact got lost: The CBI lab actually confirmed that the cord SteveThomas had bought was the same type of cord which was around JonBenet's neck!
    Steve Thomas, p. 291:
    "And when the cord test results were returned, the samples I had purchased from the army store were consistent with the murder ligature"

    What else do we need if the lab tests confirmed it?


    EasyWriter,

    thanks so much for your e-mail -very interesting info! I'll reply to you in the next few days.

    Of course, in a hypothetical trial, the fact alone that the cord was a match would not have been conclusive evidence enough to convict, but taken together with all the other incriminating evidence against the Ramseys, might just have been one of the nails in the 'guilty' coffin.

    Even the clumsily done knots 'alone' would not have been enough to convict, for theoretically, the defense could have argued: "just because the knots don't point to a professional, but to a bungling amateur, this does not mean that my client Patsy Ramsey must have tied them - who says that the intruder was a professional? He could have been a bungling amateur too, so bungling that he didnt even know how to construct a properly functioning garrote. And that bungling intruder then got cold feet and fled from the crime scene because he couldn't carry out what he had planned." etc, etc.

    These are just some devil's advocate arguments one could bring up.
    For the defense will always try to poke holes into specifics of the case because they want to prevent the prosecution from presenting the whole picture.
    It is not the knots and ligatures alone which point to Ramsey guit. The knots and ligatures are one crucial part of an overall picture which screams guilty so loud that the Ramseys getting away with it puts this case right up there with the worst miscarriages of justice in criminal history.

    The prosecution could have countered the defense's arguments that
    Patsy's fibers were found in the 'garrote' handle, on the duct tape and in the paint tray.

    And John's shirt fibers in the crotch area of JB's underwear link him to the crime scene too.

    The head bash came first, which leaves the garrote scene as being staged afterward.

    Then there's the ransom note, of which Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated as the author.
    But although the ransom note has Patsy written all over it, at trial, one probably would have both prosecution and defense handwriting experts contradicting each other.
    The Ramseys suspicious behavior and non-cooperation right from the start is circumstantial evidence against them too.

    Do you guys think (had there ever been a trial) that it would have been easy or difficult for the prosecution to convince the jury of the Ramseys' guilt?
    I sometimes think that despite all the evidence pointing toward them, it still would have been quite a challenge. The major challenge being to prove who of the Ramseys delivered the head bash. Which of the two suspects was the actual perp whose deed, the head bash, set everything else in motion?
    For again, theoretically, the person who delivered the head blow needn't necessarily be the same person who staged the scene afterward. This would offer another loophole for the defense imo.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice