Forensic evidence

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

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

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    Wasn't it actually Frank Coffman (MaskedMan) who found the same cord was sold at McGlucken's hardware store? I remember he posted photos of it hanging on their aisle shelves, which he took with his camera.

    Coffman also mentioned that the price quoted in Steve Thomas' book was not correct and was actually $1.69 instead of $1.49 (or something like that). Thomas wrote that they found items with the same price on Ramsey purchase receipts at the store, but the receipts had no product code to identify what was purchased.
     
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    I don't think Steve would do this either, rashomon. I also agree with Delmar about John Ramsey being involved with the staging.

    About the cord, I would personally have to see it close up to make any true judgement on it, but other than that it's judging the lab test as true gospel. Not easy when we cannot see it for ourselves.
     
  3. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    In the scheme of things, where the crime scene cord was purchased
    is of minimal importance in comparison to its amateurish use in
    the staging. This is real evidence that will hold up in court.
    The controversy over the hardware store cord and question of
    match, or no match to the crime scene cord becomes important in
    the context of presenting the notion of match as evidence. If
    this alleged evidence is alleged to connect the Ramseys to the
    crime, when it fails to do so, the Ramseys reap the benefit by
    indirect fallout in the direction of their claimed innocence. I
    have no doubt that it would take only a few minutes before a jury
    with the materials question for them to see there is no match.

    The fact that the store sample is a “soft nylon cord†and the
    crime scene cord is also soft nylon is basically meaningless.
    There are miles and miles of soft nylon cord all over the world.
    The numerous photos of the crime scene cord are available on the
    Internet. Even at a glance, the cord appears flat. I know of no
    one who disputes this. Even Van Tassel remarked that “it looked
    like a soft flat white shoelace.†The hardware store cord is
    identified as “3/16-inch woven cord.†The 3\16 diameter refers to
    a round cord. Round vs flat refutes the alleged evidence. It’s as
    simple as that. A jury would recognize this contradiction in a
    matter of seconds. If photos of the crime scene cord and photos
    the hardware cord were posted side by side on the Internet, every
    viewer could also see this. So far, no one has done this as far
    as I know.

    Rashomon: I don't agree with ST's theory of what happened (he
    thinks that John had nothing to with the murder nor with the
    staging) but I don't think Steve Thomas would ever consciously
    put in false factual information in his book.
    Therefore when he says that the cord he had bought was (ST, p.
    234):

    "Coghlan's cord", a soft nylon, fifty-foot length of white
    Stansport 32-strand, 3/16-inch woven cord.

    and when he then says that lab tests confirmed that this cord was
    indeed consistent with the ligature tied around JB's neck and
    wrists (ST, p. 291):

    "And when the cord results were returned, the samples I had
    puchased from the army store were consistent with the murder
    ligature."

    I believe him 100 per cent.†(End quote)

    Not for a moment do I believe that Steve consciously put in false
    information. Do I think he made a mistake? Yes, I do; several
    including “"...twisted around the broken paintbrush handle to
    create a terrible killing tool...."

    Not in any geometry book, nor other experience have I encountered
    anything other than diameter meaning through the center of a
    circle. Again, I solicit a differing experience. If none exist, I
    am left with what I have. This means that when the hardware store
    cord is identified by diameter, this is the same a saying it is
    round. So, in one place, the book says the crime scene cord is
    flat while the alleged matching cord is round. It just won’t
    jell. One of the other may be believed, but not both.

    There was no killing tool to see, nor matching cord to see.
    Again, I say, I do not know the details of the mix up, but have
    no doubt there was one. I have personally already looked
    extensively and been unable to find any flat nylon cord in any
    hardware store or similar business. I repeat my offer:

    “I will be happy to pay for time and materials to anyone who will
    go to McGuckin's, purchase 3\16 FLAT CORD, then post address of
    store, a photo of cord and receipt from the store.â€

    All I’m asking is show me and I will stand corrected with
    appreciation.
     
  4. rashomon

    rashomon Member

     
  5. BluesStrat

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    I wish someone could dig up that old photo Coffman took of the cord at McGuckins. I suspect the cord isn't manufactured as "flat", but the way it is wound and packaged causes it to take on that shape.
     
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    No, BlueStrat, you're wrong about this. Next time you're in Walmart, go to the sewing section and take a look at cords there. A round weave is actually woven that way, and a flat weave is woven flat.
     
  7. BluesStrat

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    KK, I know exactly what you are talking about. But I'm just thinking about this perticular nylon cord and how it was packaged. It was sold in the Sporting Goods section at McGucken's, not in a sewing section.
     
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, sorry, BlueStrat, didn't mean to step on your toes.

    I know that it's debated whether it was dress-making cord, or shoe string, or actually bought in McGucken's. I don't believe it has ever been fully proven it was bought at McGucken's, as the receipt did not itemize, which I'm sure everyone knows. I only brought up the Walmart sewing section because they have both round woven cords and flat weaves, as well, for a comparison.

    All I can tell you is years ago, I looked up the Stansport cord online, which they had a picture of in their online catalog, and it looked like the same cord to me.

    I looked it up sometime in the last year, and it's no longer online that I can find.
     
  9. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Easywriter, where in Steve Thomas' book is it stated that 3/16 refers to diameter?

    But of course it the purchase of the cord could have been traced back to the Ramseys as the buyers, this would have been very damaging evidence in court, pointing to their involvement. For which intruder would rely on finding cord quickly in the victim's fifteen-room house?

    I believe that Steve Thoas did not further question Van Tassell about the knots themselves because he in fact believed that the garrote was "a terrible killing tool", and therefore the knots in his opinion must have functioned to effect that garroting.
    In short, Thomas failed to recognize the garrote scene as a staged scene in which the garrote was meant only to look like a terrible killing tool.

    And your input in pointing this out through your very convincing garrote analysis can't be valued enough, EW.
    It is in perfect consistence with what the CASKU experts stated too: the garrote scene in the wine cellar was staged.
    And since no intruder could have had any interest in staging a scene, this leaves the Ramseys, who had every interest in staging a scene.
     
  10. BluesStrat

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    Rashomon,
    I don't think it would have made any difference at all. Remember that half the items used in the garrote construction (the paint brush) WAS from the house. If the cord had been sourced to the Ramseys, they would have merely claimed the intruder found some cord in the basement to use along with the brush. JR would have played stupid as usual, and probably would have told LE that he thinks he might have bought the cord to use when sailing.

    Same goes for the duct tape, which would also have been another Ramsey excuse if it was found in the house.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, just to present the other side of this issue, I will have to hear it from medical experts that the garrote found on JonBenet's neck did not, in fact, strangle her. Everything I have ever seen or read from the experts is clear: JonBenet was strangled by the cord on her neck. I think the bruising makes that a very easy conclusion.

    I also don't think that interpreting what Thomas DIDN'T tell you as meaning what you have theorized is therefore correct, is sound logic. JMO It's pure speculation. I think there was much Thomas did not tell, because he wanted to protect the case evidence as much as possible, just in case there ever was an arrest.

    It has often been complained by some that Thomas' book was a disappointment because he did not reveal anything that we didn't already know about the evidence. Of course, those same complainers then whine about how Thomas betrayed the case...while ignoring that LOU SMIT was actually the person who GAVE AWAY THE FARM in his PowerPoint, which he shopped to every PRO-RAMMER he could find.

    But I think Thomas' intention in writing his book was simply to do what we all spend too much time trying to do, as well: reveal how corrupt the DA is in Boulder, the justice system is in Colorado, and how this buried the case against the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey. I think Thomas' succeeded with that goal. It just took some time. And it turned out that nobody in Colorado LE or politics cared, anyway. So we learned that as well, and now another murdered baby of a rich Boulder family is getting away with it, using the Ramsey play book. Very sad.
     
  12. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  13. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    This is precisely why I said that in the scheme of things, where
    the cord came from is of little importance. On the other hand,
    alleged evidence that won’t fly becomes important to the Ramseys.
     
  14. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    From your post, EasyWriter:

    And that was what I wanted to know from you, EW: where exactly is it stated, (either in ST's book or elsewhere) that a 3/16-inch refers to diameter and therefore to a round cord?

    But WHY can't 3/16 inch refer to the width of the cord?
    3/16 of an inch is approx. 47 millimeters (almost half a centimeter), which could very well be the width of the cord which was found on JB's neck and wrists.

    You wrote:
    You said in one of your posts that you are the one who attaches diameter to it because 3/16 inch can refer to nothing else than diameter.

    Which is why, before asking any Boulderites posting here to go to McGuckin's :), I'd like to ask you this question:

    Where is the official source which states that a 3/16 inch woven cord can refer to nothing else than diameter?
    Where is the official source which states that a 3/16 inch woven cord can only be a round cord?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2006
  15. heymom

    heymom Member

    Here is an ivory braided cord, measured by its width. The description is "rayon, 1/4" braid."
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    cord

    That is exactly what I have been saying - 3/16 refers to width of the cord. Of course you can measure the width of flat cord. I guess it could be trim cord, but I will eat my hat if LE didn't attempt to match the material to the nylon cord that ST found at McGuckins and they would certainly be able to determine if it was at least similar. The cord was compared visually and we know it was supposed to be similar in appearance, but I think there would be more testing done - maybe by the order of the grand jury. We wouldn't be privy to those results. It just comes down to this - we don't know every piece of evidence, how it was tested nor the results of those tests.
     
  17. sue

    sue Member

    This thread has information about the cord. In post #9 of that thread, Little posted a quote from Steve Thomas's book. The bold and underline are my emphasis:
    We don't know what further testing was done or what the results were, as Texan mentioned, but testing was obviously done.

    And, I'm not saying this is sewing cord, but I have done a lot of sewing and bought a lot of trim in my life. Every type of cord I have bought from sewing stores, from the decorative kind that someone posted a picture of to stuff that looks more like baby rope just gives a measurement in inches.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2006
  18. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  19. sue

    sue Member

    First of all, we all understand the definition of diameter.
    But, many of us have seen flat cord/ decoration/trim that is labeled with a size like 1/2", 3/4" or 3/16". So, putting a size like that can just as easily refer to a flat measurement as to a diameter.
    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.
    Just a guess, but if he had many different samples that all looked very similar, it may have been possible to look for a match in the product lot.
    Most pieces of polypropylene I have seen is rigid or stiff. That doesn't mean that every piece is. Just that most pieces I have seen are.
    yes, it makes very good sense.
    Because nylon frays, whenever I have bought any rope,cord or trim made of nylon, the end has been finished in some way to keep it from fraying. Sometimes it's a piece of tape around the end. Sometimes it's heat treated along the end.
    Without cutting or fraying the end, it's only possible to see what the outside looks like. So, to see the inside and determine whether or not that is similar, you have to do something to the end (which could be cutting off the end or if it's not finished so completely, fraying the end).
    I don't agree with the 'horrible killing tool', but nothing else in the statements are contradictory and I'm sure that fraying the end and looking at the end of the cord next to the end of the evidence is not the only test that was done.
    If you believe that 3/16 can only refer to a diameter, I guess then it is contradictory, but saying a cord is 3/16 doesn't say anything about its shape, only its size. And to most people, saying a cord is 3/16 would be used along with what they can see about it. If they can see it is a flat cord, that would mean the 3/16 inch measurement means across. If they can see it is a round cord, the 3/16 measurement would mean diameter.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2006
  20. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Very impressive post, Sue. Kudos to your excellent logic applied!
     
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