One More Time

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by EasyWriter, Mar 21, 2004.

  1. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Frankg, the fiber evidence on the body has been discussed on numerous threads here at FFJ over the last year. A search of the archived threads will lead you to the substantiation for them. If memory serves, the dark fibers matching JR's sweater found in the crotch of JB's panties was revealed in the 2000 Ramsey interviews, also posted in archived threads.

    An absence of evidence of an intruder pretty much rules out an intruder. Evidence of Ramsey culpability pretty much rules in the Ramseys. One does not weigh upon the other in crime scene analysis. If one were to study the "evidence" used by LS in his intruder theory, each piece is easily disproven, collapsing that theory. If one were to study the evidence used to support a PRDI or JRDI theory, that evidence is tangible, easily proven and credible. As for the RN, the majority of analysts could not rule out PR as the author, and, while this is not conclusive, it is sufficient to persuade the majority of people beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the fiber evidence found on the body. That is the only test of evidence credibility necessary to obtain a guilty verdict, conclusivity therefore unnecessary.

    As to other discussion regarding JR's reaction to finding the body, I thought it was utterly unbelievable that he carried a completely stiff body up the stairs by the waist, laid it down then asked Arndt if it was dead. I believe that was a leading question intended to throw Arndt off the track. I also believe that both the Ramseys staged their entire performances that morning to mislead LE, and the LE present with them that morning have the same impression.
  2. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    I think JR asked Arndt if JB was dead because he knew it was more natural to NOT think the victim dead. It should have been obvious to the nutcase that JonBenet was D E A D. He overdid the 'natural' thing to do, IMO. Yes, I have considered all the obvious factors...including that John didn't take a pulse and attempt CPR right there in the ever so well known wine cellar. It was planned and there was emotion involved but the priority emotion, IMO, was to cover up the accident and just go on. :-(
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Christmas holidays

    No one from this city's police department catches a break at Christmas time, aside from holidays put in for months ahead of time. Everyone works his or her normal work shifts on the police force during any holiday, although they are a little more lenient with officers stopping at home and eating dinner or opening gifts. The officers can be dispatched by radio anywhere they are, though.

    In Boulder, however, it seems that many were off during the Christmas holiday, even the day after Christmas, and this caused a problem when manpower was needed at the Ramseys. If the BPD had not been short-handed that morning, perhaps Linda Arndt wouldn't have been left there alone to handle the crime scene and all those people by herself. I blame her superior officers for that, not her.

    In a perfect world, sending JB's father and his friend around the house to see if they recognized anything out of place (something the cops wouldn't have recognized, since they didn't live in the house) wasn't all that far fetched. Contrary to those who say the cops focused on the parents early in this case, Arndt most certainly would not have allowed Ramsey to do such a thing if she suspected him in the disappearance of his daughter. Given the fact that Arndt was there alone with all those people and she could get no back up and she felt Ramsey needed to do something, she asked him to check to see if anything was out of place but told him not to touch anything. They should not have been allowed to wander about without a police officer with them, but Arndt couldn't be two places at once.

    It may not have been the best thing for Arndt to do in hindsight, but I can understand why she did it, not suspecting this fine family could ever be involved in anything so sordid as their daughter's disappearance. It was, after all, Boulder. Murders were not that frequent there.

    Mistakes were made, for sure, but one of the worst mistakes was Patsy calling in all their friends to muck up the scene. That happened before the cops ever arrived on the scene. I know the cops should have shooed everyone out, considering it was a crime scene, but compassion ruled, I guess, and they allowed the friends to stay to support the Ramseys. I understand that, too.

    The cops made many judgment calls that morning that would be used against them later, but if one puts himself in that situation, it's not so hard to understand why they did it.
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    People in shock

    sometimes do things they would not normally do. I could understand JR's logically knowing JBR was dead but still hoping, illogically, that they could bring her back - IF he had not touched her and felt the condition of her body.

    It's hard for me to understand his taking her body, which was stone cold and in full rigor mortis, so obviously dead, carrying it up the stairs like an ironing board, and still asking if she was dead.

    Remember Jackie Kennedy's reaction when a piece of Jack Kennedy's skull flew off when he was shot in Dallas? She climbed on the back of the car, trying to find that piece of skull, thinking perhaps that if she had it, they might save him, even though she had seen his head explode when the bullet hit. She knew he was dead, but she continued to hope. The mind just cannot comprehend that kind of trauma, though it tries to make sense of it all.

    Like I said, John Ramsey is a smart man. IMO, it was all staging, and they were good at their deceptions.
  5. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    I suspect part of my problem is I stopped following the case around 2000. I thought about this last night after going to bed and as I recall the issue was fibers found that did not match anything in the house. It was assumed these fibers came from something used to wash JonBenet down. Has it subsequently been determined that the fiber actually belonged to JR, and hence implicates as opposed to exonerates him? I'll go search.. this is news to me. Probably won't be the last time either.

    Re; absence of evidence.. if I have a box with a marble in it, and the marble is either black or white, and I can't prove it's black, does that prove it's white? IMO, no one has proven an intruder, but until it can be proven that an intruder couldn't have been there, you have no basis to therefore infer Ramsey guilt. I am certain any defense attorney would have no problem showing precedent of an intruder not leaving behind forensic evidence, either thru intruder savvy or corruption of crime scene and/or ineptitude of the investigators. Prove Ramsey guilt and I'll agree there was no intruder. Prove and intruder and I'll agree the Ramsey's are innocent. Don't prove either, and I'll continue to weigh things on their own merit. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.. they don't get a free ride because the defense can't prove an intruder was there.

    I found much (ok, a whole lot) of JR and PR's behavior highly suspect. No debate there.

    perhaps I've sounded overly critical of the responding officers. I prefer to blame the BPD as a whole, and dole out direct criticism where applicable. I don't think Arndt was properly trained for the situation she found herself in, and she clearly shouldn't have been the only detective at the scene. To make matters worse, the Ramsey's invite the whole damn neighborhood over, and makes the situation completely unmanageable for one detective. But whatever the reason, the fact is the BPD, as a whole, blew the case in the first few hours and I don't see any way to defend them on that.
  6. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

    I agree with pretty much everything you said Frankg... and add to that the fact that the DA's Office was totally unprofessional to the point that they Pi**ed off the FBI who were trying to help.
  7. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Frank this is a staged crime scene. Killers don't stage crime scenes in other peoples' homes. Gregg McCrary found 18 cases in the FBI files of dead children in homes with a faked ransom notes and every one of them was killed by a parent or care-giver. Whether or not we ever find out what exactly happened that night, the focus has been and should be on the three people inside that locked home. This business about having to prove an intruder "couldn't have gotten in" is not how things work. You follow the evidence and clear the people with proximity to the body if you can.

    If so much as a skin cell or hair from some outside party was found on JBR, I'd certainly consider an intruder--but that is not the case hear. This person would have had to be in that home for hours and yet he left nothing.

    The ransom not was written on Patsy's pad, with her pen.
  8. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    I never suggested one would have to prove an intruder couldn't get in. That's impossible, and the comment was rhetorical. It was in response to the comment that since no intruder evidence was found, it must prove the Ramsey's are guilty. I was attempting to show why that logic is flawed. Apparently I'm not doing such a good job.

    That this was a staged crime scene is subjective, not hard fact. I believe the circumstantial evidence to support that position is strong. I also believe that if there were ever a trial, the defense would raise issues such as those I noted earlier in this thread and attempt to raise reasonable doubt. That's why I ask the questions.. because if there is no reasonable explanation, I believe it could raise reasonable doubt. Again, your mileage may vary.

    The ransom note was written on Patsy's pad. OK... the source for the duct tape was not found in the house. Touche`. Look, I am not a Ramsey defender. I lean heavily toward their guilt, and have no credible idea if not them, who. But that's not the point. I have some honest concerns with this case. As I noted, there are aspects of the crime that give me pause. All I did was suggest to EW that the real challenge was not to those who believe they can prove an intruder.. it's clear to me they just drink too much. The real challenge is _proving_ the Ramsey's guilt, and eliminating things that have the potential to raise reasonable doubt. I don't care to debate with you over guilt or innocence.. I respect you too much, and I usually agree with your thoughts on the case.

    Agreed Shadow...
  9. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Frank. You poor thing. All those years off the case have rotted your brain. We might have to get you tested.
  10. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

  11. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Easy Writer

    I go along with your theory that the incompetence and incestuousness of The Old Boys' Club in Boulder is what sank this case, and any chance of ever bringing the perps to justice.

    Now that I have had a firsthand look at the same situation in my own county, during the Illes case, I see more clearly how these Old Boys' Networks operate.

    It is very discouraging to most justice-watchers.

    Just recently our one and only female judge has been made to cave in on a tough sentence she handed down to a baby-killer. This guy was a big strong buff man who shook a 2 and 1/2 year old baby boy to death over a pottying incident.

    She had given him 7 years in the state pen after he pleaded nolo contendere. He was allowed to change his plea and cop to involuntary manslaughter. Now he will do 16 to 32 months in the state pen.

    I am furious!

    A baby's life isn't worth much nowadays in Lycoming County, PA.
  12. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    What, you say this cause I suggest I typically agree with your opinion? Your right.. what the heck happened to me? :D
  13. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    "Deja,I suspect part of my problem is I stopped following the case around 2000. I thought about this last night after going to bed and as I recall the issue was fibers found that did not match anything in the house. It was assumed these fibers came from something used to wash JonBenet down. Has it subsequently been determined that the fiber actually belonged to JR, and hence implicates as opposed to exonerates him? I'll go search.. this is news to me. Probably won't be the last time either."

    Frank, I think you're right. A lot has happened in re evidence since you were last on the forums (I remember you well!). It would be good to catch up. PR's sweater fibers were found entwined in the ligature as well as on the white blanket covering JB that remained in the basement. The Ramseys' explanation of fiber transfer that could have occurred AFTER the body was brought up from the basement fails to satisfy entwinement of those fibers in the cord and doesn't even explain how those fibers got on the white blanket which remained in the basement where PR claimed she never was.

    JR's sweater fibers were found in the crotch of the oversized panties on the body. JR just flat out denied this rather than provide any explanation for them being there.

    Additionally, multi-colored fibers, including dark blue, were found on the body but no specific location has ever been revealed. In Meyers' autopsy report and immediate subsequent media interview, he stated clearly that there was evidence that the pubic area only on the body had been wiped down. This could be a possible explanation for the multi-colored fibers, although Elle mentioned that a blue bathrobe belonging to PR was found on the floor in one of the upstairs rooms. Speculation has been circling the forums for the last several years that this is the source of the multi-colored or at least dark blue fibers found on the body. I'm more inclined to believe those fibers are consistent with whatever material was used to wipe down just the pubic area.

    All our discussions on this evidence can be found in the archives for sourcing documentation.

    I tend to analyze a crime scene from a legal perspective, that is, looking FOR evidence then following where it naturally leads as far as theories go, then looking at sufficiency of evidence to prove that theory beyond a reasonable doubt. We've discussed analysis from various angles, including Occam's razor principles, on other threads as well. As EW stated above, theories, and guilt, are proven by evidence.

    "Re; absence of evidence.. if I have a box with a marble in it, and the marble is either black or white, and I can't prove it's black, does that prove it's white? IMO, no one has proven an intruder, but until it can be proven that an intruder couldn't have been there, you have no basis to therefore infer Ramsey guilt. "

    Having spent the last 30 years in law, I will have to disagree with you on this point. Your logic is faulty. Looking into that box wherein a black marble is contained, by all common and reasonable determinators of "black" vs. "white" and "in" vs. "out", it is a logical conclusion that the marble is indeed in that box and is black beyond a reasonable doubt. No intruder theory can be proven with the evidence known publicly, therefore, at this point, no intruder. OTOH, Ramsey guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore RDI. A defense attorney's job is simple--raise enough reasonable doubt and the prosecution fails. What constitutes "reasonable doubt" and sufficiency of it to render a prosecution failed? It's different in everyone's mind, there is no quantifying standard that can be applied. That's the failsafe in jury trials.

    "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mandate conclusivity either. It means simply that evidence in sum total must be persuasive enough to take a reasonable person beyond a reasonable doubt of culpability. That's it. So any claims that circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial" and therefore not conclusive is a moot argument since that criteria is not necessary for a successful prosecution. This is law, not necessarily including the same standards nonlawyers use in determining guilt.

    If you can look in a box and successfully argue that the black marble in it really isn't in it, and really isn't black, then you win. But you have to use common sense and reason in that argument, and frankly, frank, the forensic evidence against the Ramseys is quite powerful and would take more than denial to move a jury beyond reasonable doubt. Add on to that forensic evidence the constant inconsistencies, contradictions and outright lies in their many testimonies, and their bizarre behaviors, and I would have no trouble convincing a jury of guilt. I have yet to hear any arguments that are sufficiently rational and reasonable to overcome all that in 7 years.

    "I am certain any defense attorney would have no problem showing precedent of an intruder not leaving behind forensic evidence, either thru intruder savvy or corruption of crime scene and/or ineptitude of the investigators. Prove Ramsey guilt and I'll agree there was no intruder. "

    Wrong again. No matter how skilled a defense attorney may be, no one is good enough to prove a negative. There can be no credible proof that something DIDN'T exist, only that it did. Therefore, there could be no evidence available to prove an intruder WASN'T in that house, only that one was or may have been! What evidence can you offer here that an intruder was in the house? What evidence can you offer here that no intruder was in the house? That's why the intruder theory so far has failed. There is no evidence that someone else was there and it's impossible to prove there was no one else there.

    And there is always a possibility, not a probability at this point, that there could have been someone else in the house and the Ramseys still killed their daughter. So proving one theory doesn't negate the other by logic.

    It would probably be best if you got caught up on the evidence and reconsider your position of no proof of Ramsey guilt after that.
  14. AK

    AK Member

    Great thread!

    LXIV, shaken baby cases are the toughest cases to prove to a medical certainty. They're also cases that judges hate to take on, as someone is always going to be angry at the result. That your guy got jail time at all means there was at least some evidence and the jury filled in the gaps with either logic or emotion. If there was more of the latter than the former, he may have grounds for appeal.

    Frankg, you're the kind of fair-minded person any attorney would want on a jury. You illustrate the holes in this case and why no DA should go forward with a prosecution until it becomes a winnable case.

    DejaNu, compare the snippets from the interviews and the way the questions are stated regarding the fibers. I wouldn't put JR's fibers on the "fact" side, whereas I would the info about Patsy's fibers.

    I hope everyone is following the current San Diego trial of Richard Tuite for the murder of Stephianie Crowe. There are many similar elements to the Ramsey case -- an intruder is charged with the crime but left no trace of himself behind, and he's mentally ill and sloppy. Family members discovered the victim and walked through a bloody crime scene, and Mom fell on her daughter's prone body and no doubt eradicated evidence.

    One important difference is that as soon as cops arrived, the family members were separated, questioned and each member photographed repeatedly as they stripped off each piece of clothing, until they were naked. And still, the cops made what seems to be an erroneous decision to initially charge the brother and his friends for the crime (there will be a civil suit on this matter soon).

    I will stipulate that the Ramsey crime scene wasn't pristine, but I've never seen one that is, at least to a defense attorney who wants to point to that as reasonable doubt. In reality, cases are prosecuted all the time with less than perfect initial policing. When the Ramsey case goes forward there will be other elements to compensate for cop mistakes made early on.
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    Their own home search!

    What I find very strange is Patsy and John Ramsey not searching their own house themselves for JonBenét, before the 911 call. Both of them knew this room was there. This is where the Christmas trees were stored. They could then have told the police they had thoroughly searched the house. I would have thought this would have been a natural reaction to satisfy themselves that JonBenét wasn't trapped in one of those basement rooms.

    Fleet White remembered his daughter Daphne hiding in their home and giving them a fright, so this was why he headed downstairs shortly after he arrived at the Ramsey's, and searched himself.

    Enjoyed your excellent post DejaNu. Gave me the feeling I was actually in court. I was just waiting on the verdict being announced for the Ramseys. GUILTY AS CHARGED!
  16. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Gavels Down!

    Well, Elle, thanks for the compliment on that post. Sometimes we can get way too overanalytical with stuff and I try to pitch in to restore some balance, that's all.

    Hey, according to John Ramsey in several transcripts, he claims he made what would constitute a very quick run-through of their home in search of JonBenet that morning in the 3 minute time slot between reading the RN in his underwear to greeting Officer French at the door. He also managed to get back up to his room on the 3rd floor to fully dress in that time period as well......Must have been traveling at "ludicrous speed" (Spaceballs).
  17. Elle

    Elle Member

    Gavels Down!

    Believe me, DejaNu,

    I'll speak for myself here, but I'm sure there are many out there who feel exactly the same as I do. I can get truly lost in posts like yours. I watch a lot of court scenes on TV, and love movies that have great court scenes. One of the TV shows being "Just Cause" it's great to be in touch with a real lawyer. I have a nephew in the U.S. who is a corporate lawyer, but that's boring for me. I would have loved to have been a criminal lawyer, but was born too soon. :-(

    It's nice you have the patience for the rest of us who don't have your expertise. I'm truly honoured to know you, and it's nice to get the chance to post with you and learn something.

    You said before you were intrigued by me working in a foreign country. I lived in Teheran, Iran in the 1960's ...they were still hanging killers publicly in the square at 6:30 am. None of this chasing after the suspects for 7 years. I guess they couldn't figure us out, as to why we took so long over this way to kill the killers(?). :p That was a long time ago!
  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