A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

I'll go along with that...for now. UKGuy asks some good questions, though.

DNA isn't the end-all, be-all that pop culture would have us believe, for several reasons.

DNA evidence isn’t always going to be the “end-all, be-all; but, sometimes it is. And, everything in between. Relevance and usefulness is going to vary case to case.

In this case, the dismissal of the DNA evidence is hard to understand.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

DNA evidence isn’t always going to be the “end-all, be-all; but, sometimes it is. And, everything in between. Relevance and usefulness is going to vary case to case.

In this case, the dismissal of the DNA evidence is hard to understand.
...

AK

I could try to explain it, but I have this inexplicable sense it wouldn't take.

 

[Anti-K]

I could try to explain it, but I have this inexplicable sense it wouldn't take.

I have heard explanations. For example, I’ve heard Kolar’s, but IMO his explanation and his reasoning is, to be polite and minimalist, questionable.

There is the argument that the DNA may not be related to the case. That’s a good argument and it could be true, however, to-date, all attempts to trace the DNA to an innocent explanation have failed just as the likeliest innocent sources have all been ruled out. So, the innocent explanation becomes unlikely and the likely innocent source becomes unlikely. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.

Enter the argument that the DNA must have an innocent explanation because the case against the Ramseys is so certain. This seems to be simply an argument of opinion that has never (Carnes notwithstanding) been tested in Court (which goes against the argument!).

There is the argument (also from Kolar) that the totality of the case is RDI. This is a much stronger version of the above argument. This doesn’t just say that the RDI case is certain, it says that every piece of evidence, every aspect of it, down to the deepest core, with no room for doubt or alternative explanation, is all RDI. But, the DNA is part of the case. Therefore, the totality of the case cannot be RDI.

Some of the arguments actually go more towards the reliability of an identification and are of the type that would inform the identified person’s defence: that’s not my DNA.

But, it is still someone’s DNA. It is still found in incriminating locations, right where investigators believed that the killer would leave it, and despite effort, an innocent explanation or an innocent source has not been shown or identified. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

I have heard explanations. For example, I’ve heard Kolar’s, but IMO his explanation and his reasoning is, to be polite and minimalist, questionable.

There is the argument that the DNA may not be related to the case. That’s a good argument and it could be true, however, to-date, all attempts to trace the DNA to an innocent explanation have failed just as the likeliest innocent sources have all been ruled out. So, the innocent explanation becomes unlikely and the likely innocent source becomes unlikely. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.

Enter the argument that the DNA must have an innocent explanation because the case against the Ramseys is so certain. This seems to be simply an argument of opinion that has never (Carnes notwithstanding) been tested in Court (which goes against the argument!).

There is the argument (also from Kolar) that the totality of the case is RDI. This is a much stronger version of the above argument. This doesn’t just say that the RDI case is certain, it says that every piece of evidence, every aspect of it, down to the deepest core, with no room for doubt or alternative explanation, is all RDI. But, the DNA is part of the case. Therefore, the totality of the case cannot be RDI.

Some of the arguments actually go more towards the reliability of an identification and are of the type that would inform the identified person’s defence: that’s not my DNA.

But, it is still someone’s DNA. It is still found in incriminating locations, right where investigators believed that the killer would leave it, and despite effort, an innocent explanation or an innocent source has not been shown or identified. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.
...

AK

How can you ever go about proving an innocent explanation when innocent people's DNA is not on file? Also, the people most likely to know who that innocent source may be are also the only suspects in this murder, so they would be unlikely to be forthcoming about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

But internally, there would be no other reason I can think of for there to be “semiliquid thin watery red fluid” inside the vaginal vault other than some attempt at somehow “rinsing out” the blood that was present.-otg

IDK otg,

as a 'minimal amount' can it not be considered as blood mixed with watery discharge?

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/vaginal_discharge.html

 

[Anti-K]

How can you ever go about proving an innocent explanation when innocent people's DNA is not on file? Also, the people most likely to know who that innocent source may be are also the only suspects in this murder, so they would be unlikely to be forthcoming about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You trace the DNA to an innocent source in this case the same way that they do in any other case. You check all the people known to have most recently been in contact with the victim. And, before you go on about tDNA please take into account that the CODIS sample is not known to be tDNA.
…

AK

 

[andreww]

You trace the DNA to an innocent source in this case the same way that they do in any other case. You check all the people known to have most recently been in contact with the victim. And, before you go on about tDNA please take into account that the CODIS sample is not known to be tDNA.
…

AK

You don't seem to get it AK. When you talk about people that had come in to contact with JB prior to her death, who are you relying on to give you that info? The Ramsey's of course. The Ramsey's have a vested interest in keeping the owner of that DNA unknown for obvious reasons, so are they actually being forthcoming when they disclose all the people they came in to contact with? Was their someone else in their home that night? Did they make another undisclosed stop on the way home from the Whites? And, if the DNA came from a factory worker or a store clerk or customer, how would that ever be proved?

You continue to insinuate that this DNA came from some intruder despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there was an intruder. Personally I find it to be getting a little tiresome dealing with your theories. You've taken the cowardly position of putting forth a theory based solely on one piece of evidence, with no viable suspect. It is impossible to prove or disprove things that didn't happen my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Investigators rely upon their investigation to determine who was most recently in contact with the victim, and I doubt that they just believed everything that the Ramseys told them. I don’t think you believe that, either.

Your remark that “the Ramsey's have a vested interest in keeping the owner of that DNA unknown” is your opinion only; it isn’t fact. And, if IDI, your opinion is wrong, and in either case there is no way for the Ramseys to know – even if RDI – whose DNA it is.

I don’t think any factory workers, store clerks, etc had access to the victim’s leggings or panties that night (and, please, the factory worker nonsense went out the window when the matching tDNA was found).
.

There is much evidence to suggest the possibility of an intruder and this evidence (from behavioral/family history, the nature of the assault, the unidentified ransom note author to fibers, hair, tDNA and DNA; etc). denying it won’t make any of it go away.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I would actually like to hear how one imagines that, to use and example from Andreww’s above post, the DNA of a store clerk or customer made its way to the inside crotch of the victim’s panties, and onto the outside of her leggings.

Seriously.

How could this happen? Anyone care to spell this out? Because, it needs to be spelled out.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

I would actually like to hear how one imagines that, to use and example from Andreww’s above post, the DNA of a store clerk or customer made its way to the inside crotch of the victim’s panties, and onto the outside of her leggings.

Seriously.

How could this happen? Anyone care to spell this out? Because, it needs to be spelled out.
...

AK

I don't know about the DNA of a store clerk or customer being very likely, considering the package of underwear was sealed when it was bought. (This is to be assumed, of course. Hopefully the store had a policy against letting an opened package of anything be sold to a customer.)

I do, however, find the "factory worker" theory more possible than any other "where-did-the-DNA-come-from" theory. It's not nonsense by any means. If we agree the same person (intruder, Ramsey, etc.) handled both the underwear and the leggings, it is then possible that secondary transfer came into play. Thus, the matching tDNA was found in said locations.

 

[andreww]

I would actually like to hear how one imagines that, to use and example from Andreww’s above post, the DNA of a store clerk or customer made its way to the inside crotch of the victim’s panties, and onto the outside of her leggings.

Seriously.

How could this happen? Anyone care to spell this out? Because, it needs to be spelled out.
...

AK

As has been suggested a million times, via cross contamination. Because Mary Lacy acted so secretly, we have absolutely no idea about the samples supposedly found on the leggings. We have no idea how many markers were found. And given the behavior of herself and Alex Hunter, are we sure it was even there to begin with?

My theory has always been that the microscopic DNA came off of the towel that she was wiped down with. As has been said many times, you can't date stamp DNA, so it could have been there for months or years. And if that were the case, there is a pretty decent chance the Ramsey's might have an idea who used that towel. Do you think they'd be eager to reveal that information? I think not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[spooky24]

microscopic DNA came off of the towel that she was wiped down

If this is true then where is the towel? I believe the result of secondary and/or tertiary transfer of the trance DNA is the strongest measure that this evidence is useless.

If I open a door knob then a young child rubs up against it with their leg, then touches that spot on the way to scratching her private area then trace but mixed DNA could be found on her that links me to the sample.

The whole DNA thing in this case is null and void and not important enough as it is-without collaborating evidence of a break in and an intruder. It is no where near as important as trying to get to the truth about the odd movements of John Ramsey that morning were about.

The list could go on and on. How could a police detective allow the father of the victim to just get up and leave at will. Or get in a circle around the dead person with the parents while tear drops were splashing down on the remains along with shrieking sobs to contaminate everything. How can anyone-as controlled and calm as John Ramsey-yell and scream for an ambulance when the victim was already in full rigor and smelled awful?

 

[UKGuy]

As has been suggested a million times, via cross contamination. Because Mary Lacy acted so secretly, we have absolutely no idea about the samples supposedly found on the leggings. We have no idea how many markers were found. And given the behavior of herself and Alex Hunter, are we sure it was even there to begin with?

My theory has always been that the microscopic DNA came off of the towel that she was wiped down with. As has been said many times, you can't date stamp DNA, so it could have been there for months or years. And if that were the case, there is a pretty decent chance the Ramsey's might have an idea who used that towel. Do you think they'd be eager to reveal that information? I think not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
BBM: ITA, or from her size-6 underwear used to wipe her down, which transferred the dna from inside the White's bathroom?

The dna may have already been located inside the waistband of the size-12's or the longjohns and transferred by movement of these garments?

BPD researched this latter theory and found various pieces of brand new out the packet underwear to contain foreign dna!

Then there is autopsy theory where the chain of custody was broken on many of JonBenet's belongings.

All these separate possibilities are enough to erode any certainty that an intruder was involved.

That is IDI proponents have no credible evidence and no coherent theory!

.

 

[UKGuy]

If this is true then where is the towel? I believe the result of secondary and/or tertiary transfer of the trance DNA is the strongest measure that this evidence is useless.

If I open a door knob then a young child rubs up against it with their leg, then touches that spot on the way to scratching her private area then trace but mixed DNA could be found on her that links me to the sample.

The whole DNA thing in this case is null and void and not important enough as it is-without collaborating evidence of a break in and an intruder. It is no where near as important as trying to get to the truth about the odd movements of John Ramsey that morning were about.

The list could go on and on. How could a police detective allow the father of the victim to just get up and leave at will. Or get in a circle around the dead person with the parents while tear drops were splashing down on the remains along with shrieking sobs to contaminate everything. How can anyone-as controlled and calm as John Ramsey-yell and scream for an ambulance when the victim was already in full rigor and smelled awful?

spooky24,
ITA. Even if you test people against the dna and get no match, this does not demonstrate their non-involvement since the dna, as you suggest, might have been transferred from inside a toilet, or a doorhandle, etc.

The towel might have been JR's israeli manufactured shirt, her size-6 underwear, the balled up polo-neck left in the bathroom, or the other item Patsy washed out that morning?

.

 

[andreww]

If this is true then where is the towel?

Where is the duct tape? Where is the rest of the rope? Where are the rest of the size 12s? Oops!

 

[andreww]

And here's the thing that bothers me most about the DNA. If this stuff is so microscopic and can be deposited by touch (or even easier), shouldn't they have found thousands of JBs cells before they found the three or four intruder samples? She was wearing the stuff after all! And where's Patsy's DNA? She said she put the leggings on her, shouldn't her DNA be there? But no. No intruder DNA anywhere else, just on those panties and leggings? I'm all for DNA testing on blood stains and semen stains at a crime scene, I just don't think the whole TDNA science is reliable or accurate though.

 

[Anti-K]

I don't know about the DNA of a store clerk or customer being very likely, considering the package of underwear was sealed when it was bought. (This is to be assumed, of course. Hopefully the store had a policy against letting an opened package of anything be sold to a customer.)

I do, however, find the "factory worker" theory more possible than any other "where-did-the-DNA-come-from" theory. It's not nonsense by any means. If we agree the same person (intruder, Ramsey, etc.) handled both the underwear and the leggings, it is then possible that secondary transfer came into play. Thus, the matching tDNA was found in said locations.

BPD and DA put a lot of effort into tracing this DNA to an innocent source. None was found. They might have missed something, but if they did it would almost have to be something unlikely.

Why did JBR’s panties have ten to 12 times the amount of DNA than was found on the new panties purchased and tested by investigators? Why is the DNA commingled with the victim’s blood? Why is it on the INSIDE of the panties? It is said to probably be saliva. There is matching tDNA on the OUTSIDE of the leggings that is said to probably be from skin cells.

How does DNA ten to 12 times the amount known to be on new panties, commingled in blood, probably saliva, inside and in the crotch of panties turn into probably skin cells and make its way to the outside of the leggings? The tDNA on the leggings makes the factory worker theory obsolete, or at least, incredibly unlikely.

Plus, we need to consider that the victim was wearing these two articles of clothing (one inside the other) at the same time. How likely is it that she would have the same male (innocent) stranger’s DNA on her leggings and panties if they were transferred on separate occasions (when she wasn’t wearing them together, or at all)?
Unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely, etc becomes a lot of unlikely.

If we consider the DNA alone, then an explanation of primary transfer by the killer during the commission of his crime becomes a very simple explanation. DNA alone, it becomes a likely explanation (because primary transfer is ALWAYS the likeliest method of transfer). In a contest between likely and unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely, etc, likely always wins.

There is just no easy way to dismiss the likeliest explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the claim that the DNA
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If this is true then where is the towel? I believe the result of secondary and/or tertiary transfer of the trance DNA is the strongest measure that this evidence is useless.

If I open a door knob then a young child rubs up against it with their leg, then touches that spot on the way to scratching her private area then trace but mixed DNA could be found on her that links me to the sample.

The whole DNA thing in this case is null and void and not important enough as it is-without collaborating evidence of a break in and an intruder. It is no where near as important as trying to get to the truth about the odd movements of John Ramsey that morning were about.

The list could go on and on. How could a police detective allow the father of the victim to just get up and leave at will. Or get in a circle around the dead person with the parents while tear drops were splashing down on the remains along with shrieking sobs to contaminate everything. How can anyone-as controlled and calm as John Ramsey-yell and scream for an ambulance when the victim was already in full rigor and smelled awful?

I think it would have to be a pretty low door knob for someone to be rubbing their legs against it. Anyway...

It’s easy to say something like, if Person A (a stranger) transfers their DNA to an object, and Person B touches that object than they could transfer Persons A’s DNA to another object; but, with secondary transfer Person B’s DNA is usually transferred along with Persons A’s DNA.

Primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer and un-mixed samples are most often the result of primary transfer. Likely x likely always wins over unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely.
...


AK

 

[Anti-K]

And here's the thing that bothers me most about the DNA. If this stuff is so microscopic and can be deposited by touch (or even easier), shouldn't they have found thousands of JBs cells before they found the three or four intruder samples? She was wearing the stuff after all! And where's Patsy's DNA? She said she put the leggings on her, shouldn't her DNA be there? But no. No intruder DNA anywhere else, just on those panties and leggings? I'm all for DNA testing on blood stains and semen stains at a crime scene, I just don't think the whole TDNA science is reliable or accurate though.

The answer: DNA does NOT transfer as easily and readily as you seem to believe. Scientific, peer reviewed studies bear this out.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I have heard explanations. For example, I’ve heard Kolar’s, but IMO his explanation and his reasoning is, to be polite and minimalist, questionable.

There is the argument that the DNA may not be related to the case. That’s a good argument and it could be true, however, to-date, all attempts to trace the DNA to an innocent explanation have failed just as the likeliest innocent sources have all been ruled out. So, the innocent explanation becomes unlikely and the likely innocent source becomes unlikely. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.

Enter the argument that the DNA must have an innocent explanation because the case against the Ramseys is so certain. This seems to be simply an argument of opinion that has never (Carnes notwithstanding) been tested in Court (which goes against the argument!).

There is the argument (also from Kolar) that the totality of the case is RDI. This is a much stronger version of the above argument. This doesn’t just say that the RDI case is certain, it says that every piece of evidence, every aspect of it, down to the deepest core, with no room for doubt or alternative explanation, is all RDI. But, the DNA is part of the case. Therefore, the totality of the case cannot be RDI.

Some of the arguments actually go more towards the reliability of an identification and are of the type that would inform the identified person’s defence: that’s not my DNA.

But, it is still someone’s DNA. It is still found in incriminating locations, right where investigators believed that the killer would leave it, and despite effort, an innocent explanation or an innocent source has not been shown or identified. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.
...

AK

"Presumption" is right. That's about all it is. Moreover, I found your arguments to be circular in nature, but maybe that's just me.

Look, far as I go, the DNA in the OJ Simpson case was airtight: it was fresh and had all of its genetic markers; it was blood, so it was not easy to shed; he had a fresh cut on his hand. Pretty easy conclusion. That's not the case here.

And if you must know, Kolar's idea is the one I go with. But I'll use the term "majority" if you prefer.