A. My understanding of probable cause is facts and evidence and circumstances that are within the
knowledge of a police officer that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that, A, a crime was
committed and B, that a particular individual was involved. Sometimes, depending on the case, that can
sometimes be a great threshold.

Q. And sometimes it can be a very small threshold, true?

A. A lesser threshold.

Q. Were you ever told by anyone that the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to see the
garrote and to see the firsthand original of the ransom note is because both items were getting ready to
be tested in a fashion that would be destructive and that from a strategical standpoint somewhere down
the road it might be advantageous for the defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul by saying that
they didn't have a chance to observe these pieces of evidence before they were destroyed? Did you
ever hear that explanation given as to why the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to look at those two
items?

A. No. But then again it was difficult to get much by way of explanation as to why Mr. Hofstrom
was making a number of deals with the Ramsey attorneys.

Q. Doesn't that make good sense though, just listening to it?

A. Well, I am familiar as a police officer that in Colorado if destructive testing is employed, the
defense has a right to be present.

A. Such as the clothing?

Q. The clothes, that's a key piece of evidence, isn't it, sir?

A. Correct. As I have said, that was a mistake.

Q. Yeah, and it was one of many mistakes, wasn't it?

A. I'm not here today defending the police department.

Q. I'm not asking you to defend the police department.

A. Yeah, there were many mistakes.

A. Yes, I'm with you.

Q. When was that tally made? Date that for me.

A. Mr. Wood, I can't date it specifically but they assisted us in our preparation for the VIP
presentation and just a quick reading of this was maybe spring or late spring of '98. But no, it was
before that because later in the paragraph it talks about the Title-3, which was way back before
Christmas '97. So this was, I would guess, late '97, early to spring of '98.

Q. Can I -- I don't have the time today, at least, to ask you to go through and list those 50 items. But
can I be reasonably confident that if I set about myself in your book that I could find reference to those
50 items in this book, that you have included those somewhere in here?

A. No, I can't commit to that because of what was, I remember there was an easel that was used in
which everybody in the room put out evidence, information, that sort of thing that went on to this
50-plus point probable cause board.

Q. So it may have been all of your points, you may have --

A. It certainly wasn't.

Q. You may not agree with all of them?

A. Right.

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Do you know what the findings were?

A. I believe that Detective Trujillo told us that it required the unwrapping of the ligature cord and the
-- and it was negative for any latent prints.

Q. Was there any partial palm print found on the ransom note?

A. Mr. Wood, I talk about in the book the prints that were found on the tablet and the note, but
beyond that, I don't have any real evidence beyond that. Early there was believed to have been a
partial or bladed palm which I believed turned out to be nothing.

Q. Do you know whether there was any effort to take that what was believed to be a partial palm
and compare it to the palm print found on the wine cellar door?

A. What I'm saying is I don't know that what was initially believed to be a partial print was even a
print.

Q. It's not uncommon to handle a piece of paper and not leave fingerprints, is it, sir?

A. I don't know that.

Q. You don't want me to go there.

A. FBI lab identified a hair or fiber from the adhesive side of the duct tape as a beaver hair.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Ainsworth, Detective Ainsworth, went through the Ramseys'closets in
June of 1997 and taped all the closets for hairs and that no beaver hair was found?

A. Yes, but that's not surprising.

AARGHHHH!!!!!!

Is the BORG reading this???

A. Brown and black animal hairs on her hand that had never been sourced? This is the first I've
heard of that.

Q. How about brown cotton fibers that were found on the duct tape, the cord and her body that
were consistent but no source found? Is that accurate?

A. That were consistent with what?

Q. They were consistent with each other, those fibers, the brown cotton fibers that were consistent
with fibers found on duct tape, cords and her body?

A. That's beyond the scope of what I know and just to educate you, if you allow me.

Q. Sure.

A. Anything hair and fiber related, Trujillo knows.

Q. I think we've already talked about it was a large number of fibers that were never sourced, right,
while you were there?

A. In the house, yes.

A. As far as I know.

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. What I know about that is Detective Weinheimer received that assignment during the course of
the investigation, employed the help of I think a biological -- or a botanist or somebody of some
expertise at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The name Dr. Bach jumps out at me, as well as
others, and he completed a series of reports concerning the pineapple and I think to save time one of
those conclusions I think I put in the book.

Q. About the rinds being identical?

A. That it was a fresh pineapple consistent -- fresh pineapple with a rind.

Q. Rind being consistent -- oh, with a rind but consistent with pineapple found in the house or in the
bowl?

A. Yeah, and let me clarify that, pineapple consistent down to the rind with pineapple found in the
bowl in the kitchen.

Q. Consistent down to the rind. It seems to me pineapple with rind is pineapple with rind. Was
there something unique about this particular rind?

A. I think they were able to determine -- well, in fact, I know that fellow Officer Weinheimer
disclosed to us that they were able to characterize it as a fresh pineapple rather than a canned
pineapple.

Q. Okay.

A. I think the investigation lent itself as far as, and Detective Weinheimer is a capable investigator,
as far as contacting Dole Pineapple in Hawaii, et cetera.

Q. Do you know whether there were any other reports on the pineapple, other than the autopsy
reports and Dr. Bach's reports?

A. Yeah, there was a series of reports on Weinheimer's investigation.

Q. Do you know anybody else by name that was involved in that, other than the Dr.Bach? I mean,
Dole didn't give you any report, did they?

A. No, not that I'm aware of. Sorry, the names escape me but there are other reports with other
planters, I guess, pineapple, for lack of a better term, experts.

Q. Any of those reports, anybody come up with something that was inconclusive in terms of
findings?

A. I'm sorry, I don't recall the content of the reports.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jayelles said the DNAX may point to an intruder but she doubts they can link it to the crime.

Imon offered a suggestion that one of the Ramsey kids may have been fathered by someone other than John.

-------------------------

Tipper nicely brought up the handwriting and said, "John was eliminated and Patsy was all but eliminated."

Tipper also said that she has to consider something written by Ann Rule...(paraphrased) “One of the things that must be weighed is: ‘Is this person capable of this crime?’” She said she didn't see that in Ramsey.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jayelles said Ann Rule couldn't believe that Bundy was capable of his crimes. And family members often say they just can't believe their loved ones are evil.

Jayelles also said the handwriting can't be taken as intruder evidence "because the experts disagree." (I don't count Darnay's "experts". They didn't have the right samples and the federal judge basically discredited them.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't understand howanyone can think Jayelles is really on the fence - - her bias is strikingly obvious to me.

I'm not surprised that you jump to the wrong conclusions when you don't read posts properly.

NOWHERE did I say that I doubted they could link DNA-x to the crime. I said it WOULD point to an intruder IF it was found at the crime scene AND matched the markers from the other DNA found in her underwear and under her fingernails. We don't know where it was found or whether it matched the other DNA, but it would be an indisputable fact pointing to an intruder if it did.

This is the fourth time in two months (three times in the last two weeks) that you have misquoted me and attacked me on the misquote.

OK. If DNA-x doesn't match a Ramsey and if the markers which are present in the degraded DNA in her underwear and under her fingernails MATCHES the corresponding markers on DNA-x, then I would say there is no doubt that an intruder killed JonBenet.

PROVIDED that the source for DNA-x was crime scene related - i.e. that it wasn't on a loo seat or something where it could have been deposited innocently and transferred via contact.

Is this a FACT? Well we don't know unfortunately. We don't know anything about DNA-x except that the Ramseys' DNA was compared to it along with some other folkses.

Indisputable fact counter = 0
Maybe fact counter = 1

Seems to me that you are not looking for evidence but for a way to discount what points to an intruder. Say what you want, I believe I read it all right - especially when taken in context with everything else you write.

This is the first I have heard of this, wonder if it is true?
>
> Q. How about brown cotton fibers that were
>found on the duct tape, the cord and her body that
> were consistent but no source found? Is that
>accurate?
>
> A. That were consistent with what?
>
> Q. They were consistent with each other, those
>fibers, the brown cotton fibers that were consistent
> with fibers found on duct tape, cords and her
>body?
>

I wonder if these brown fibers could be from the cheap brown cotton gloves you can get in any hardware store, Home Depo or even Wal Mart. Could the perp have worn those brown cotton gloves, thus no fingerprits?

I am truly unconcerned about your opinion of me. I can believe in an intruder theory without accepting all the red-herring evidence which make a nonsense of this case.