A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[andreww]

Andreww, the call to McGuckins by John, was not made by Mr Ramsey. It was made by someone pretending to be Mr Ramsey. IIRC, the call was made by James Rapp, a private investigator who was later charged and sentenced for illegally gathering private information on the Ramseys.

So, throw that one out.

Here’s what Thomas had to say about the receipts (EMPHASIS added):

“Among the items on Patsy’s December 9 receipt was an item from the builder’s hardware department. The price was $1.99. On the December 2 slip, there was an item from the garden department. It was $1.99. Duct tape also sold for $1.99. WE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT SHE HAD BOUGHT.” ~ Thomas; p. 120

I’ll repeat that: WE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT SHE HAD BOUGHT.

We don’t even know which department the tape was sold in. Nor, how many other items were sold at that price (a busload, I bet).

So, throw that one out, too.

What other evidence might there be? Well, the roll of tape. Obviously. Or, a piece of that tape used on something. Same with the cord. No evidence that it came from the house. Same as the object that transferred fibers to the genital area, to the tape, to the ligatures....

No evidence that these items came from the house means exactly that: there is no evidence that these items came from the house. This means, yes, obviously, that they may not have come from the house which, further, obviously, means that the killer may have brought them with him.
...

AK

Very interesting that this so called intruder was so willy nilly with what he brought and what he took. Why? The sharpie, the notepad, and the flashlight all belonged to the Ramsey's and we're supposedly left behind even though they were handled by the killer. The rope, tape and wiping cloth were all brought and taken. It doesn't make sense! Why would you bring the tools for the abduction but neglect to write the note in advance? Why would you put the pen and paper back where they belong and leave the flashlight out in plain view.?

I believe the Rs didn't believe the sharpie would have left a detectable impression on the pad, and since it was Patsy's pad and pen, her prints or DNA on them would prove nothing. Same with the flashlight. The cord, tape and cloth are a different story though. Impossible to wipe clean, the tape especially would be likely to show the last person to use it. It also would have been hard to believe that an intruder would have been able to find all these items in a big house, so they disposed of them.

Remember that John said he went to the garage to checked a door lock. Could he have been creating an excuse in case anybody saw him when he stuffed those items in his car? He later said that he had misunderstood the officers question and hadn't checked any locks. So then why was he in the garage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

The paintbrush was used for the garrote and a piece of it left in the paint tote thus creating a connection between murder weapon and home, and the so-called practice note was left in the notepad thus creating a connection between the ransom note and the home. So, if the killer removed items from the home it must have been for some reason other than to hide their connection to the home.

If IDI, the killer may have only ever intended to create the illusion of a kidnapping (perhaps, an illusion a trained eye could see through). Regardless...

If IDI, the killer may have brought with him only those items he thought he could not do without. A flashlight, a bit of cord, a piece of tape. The “wiping cloth” may have been a pair of brown, cotton gloves. He too the gloves with him when he left, but used the entirety of the cord/tape.

If IDI, the killer may have planned to use Ramsey materials to write the note right from the start. Maybe, weeks in advance. If he were to sneak around and peek through the Ramsey windows he probably would have seen the pens through the window beside a door through which he would see the notepad sitting where it was when Mr Ramsey handed it over to BPD. Fernie read the ransom note through this same door.

If IDI, the killer wouldn’t care if he left behind or used things that could be connected to the home. Forensically, it could even be to his benefit.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

For the record Dave, I wasn't really referring to experts in my post, but to normal people like you or me. Look at the note, look at Patsy's samples and historical writings and look at the character comparisons. Then consider the obvious deceptive tactics Patsy used, and finally, consider the odds that a random intruder in that house would have handwriting so similar to Patsy's that not one expert could exclude her.

I am not talking about expert opinion Dave, I am talking about people with an ounce of common sense. I doubt that there isn't a person on this planet, with the exception of predisposed Ramsey lovers like AK, that I could not convince that Patsy wrote that note. It's not about experts, it's about using your eyes and your own common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bolded the part I most agree with, andreww. Far as I go, that's what does it more than anything else. What are the chances that it could have been someone else doing all this? I wouldn't wish to gamble on them!

 

[BBB167893]

No, I don’t think that the whole point of the jury system is to decide how credible any expert might be, and, no, I don’t think jurors should be expected to form their own opinion on matters where an expert opinion is called for.

Then why bother with juries at all?

Kane wrote to Wong and told her that, “the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusion does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic examiners in this country.” Kane is harsh in his criticism.

As arguing this case has taught me, harsh does not mean correct. Those "majority standards" he refers to are over 50 years old, created by people who would not be accepted under those standards! If you can't see the problem with that...

He tells her that “it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado.”

Then why not find out? They were good enough for other states.

Even Epstein argued against Wong.

He's since changed his mind, whatever that does for you.

 

[BBB167893]

The cord, the tape and a brown, cotton object (possibly, gloves) have never been sourced to the house or to the Ramseys which implies that these were items brought into the home by the killer.
...

AK

Well, that's not quite true, is it? Remember the purchases PR made at the hardware store? They just happened to match the prices of cord and tape. Isn't that odd?

 

[BBB167893]

Investigators probably missed the panties, or saw them but didn’t bother to collect them because they were new (and packaged?), or didn’t specifically look for them, etc.

It is not a fact that jbr wore size 6 toe the White’s and I am not aware of any evidence that she was wearing anything other than the panties that she was found dead in. As far as I can recall (I’ve looked), only certain RDI posters believe that the killer (or an accomplice, etc) changed jbr’s panties. This is simply not factual and I don’t remember anyone associated with the investigation making such a claim. It is merely forum speculation.
...

AK

It's informed speculation, though. Wouldn't have been difficult for JB to get around all day with the big ones on?

 

[OliviaG1996]

It's informed speculation, though. Wouldn't have been difficult for JB to get around all day with the big ones on?

Yes, very difficult. I wonder if investigators tested the inside of the black velvet pants for any fibers that could be consistent with any of JBR's pairs of underwear. I'm sure they have, I just haven't read anything on it.

 

[Anti-K]

I bolded the part I most agree with, andreww. Far as I go, that's what does it more than anything else. What are the chances that it could have been someone else doing all this? I wouldn't wish to gamble on them!

And yet, dissimilar enough that none of the BPD (and, other) experts were able to identify her as the author. Weird thing about printing is that almost everyone’s printing is similar. There’s so much more to it than similarities.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Then why bother with juries at all?



As arguing this case has taught me, harsh does not mean correct. Those "majority standards" he refers to are over 50 years old, created by people who would not be accepted under those standards! If you can't see the problem with that...



Then why not find out? They were good enough for other states.



He's since changed his mind, whatever that does for you.

Jurors are there to form a decision based on an assessment of the evidence presented to them. Some of that evidence comes in the form of expert testimony. Daubert, as an example, is simply a set of criteria, a standard that experts are required to meet before they be allowed to testify. I can’t see how anyone can reasonably object to this principle.
.

I have no opinion on Epstein’s supposed reversal of opinion because I don’t know how he reasoned it.
.

I had more to say here, but I’m posting that on the Ransom Note Analysis thread http://tinyurl.com/ncdafn9 , because I think this conversation more properly belongs there.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It's informed speculation, though. Wouldn't have been difficult for JB to get around all day with the big ones on?

I doubt it.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

And yet, dissimilar enough that none of the BPD (and, other) experts were able to identify her as the author.

Well, they couldn't be very "expert," then, could they? And all jibes aside, I don't think that they weren't able; it's that they weren't willing. There's a big difference there.

Weird thing about printing is that almost everyone’s printing is similar. There’s so much more to it than similarities.

It's not just the similarities in the printing that stand out to me.

 

[andreww]

And yet, dissimilar enough that none of the BPD (and, other) experts were able to identify her as the author. Weird thing about printing is that almost everyone’s printing is similar. There’s so much more to it than similarities.
...

AK

That is simply not true. There are 26 letters, upper and lower, 10 digits, and countless marks. To an untrained eye all handwriting might be similar, but everyone has random differences in how they construct various letters. It is funny that Patsy showed the exact same tendencies as the author isn't it!

And fingerprints all look the same too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

That is simply not true. There are 26 letters, upper and lower, 10 digits, and countless marks. To an untrained eye all handwriting might be similar, but everyone has random differences in how they construct various letters. It is funny that Patsy showed the exact same tendencies as the author isn't it!

And fingerprints all look the same too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
ITA. There are only two candidates for authorship of the RN: PR or JR. Apart from random errors, there is the writing style, i.e. that which we are taught as longhand at school, very difficult to erase. I'm willing to bet JR's hand writing style differs from PR's?

.

 

[Anti-K]

That is simply not true. There are 26 letters, upper and lower, 10 digits, and countless marks. To an untrained eye all handwriting might be similar, but everyone has random differences in how they construct various letters. It is funny that Patsy showed the exact same tendencies as the author isn't it!

And fingerprints all look the same too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s right Andreww, you just said it!!
”To an untrained eye all handwriting might be similar...”
YOU and pretty much all of us have untrained eyes. Thank you for saying what I’ve been saying all along.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

That’s right Andreww, you just said it!!
”To an untrained eye all handwriting might be similar...”
YOU and pretty much all of us have untrained eyes. Thank you for saying what I’ve been saying all along.
...

AK

I have been a typographer for over 35 years. I am far from an untrained eye and can spot similarities and differences in letter formations from a mile away. I'm far from an untrained eye. You on the other hand....

 

[andreww]

andreww,
ITA. There are only two candidates for authorship of the RN: PR or JR. Apart from random errors, there is the writing style, i.e. that which we are taught as longhand at school, very difficult to erase. I'm willing to bet JR's hand writing style differs from PR's?

.

Of course it does. Everybody has some little idiosyncrasy in their writing that makes it identifiable. For instance, when i print the number "8", I do it in the opposite direction that most people would do it. The end product looks the same as most, but people that have watched me write will frequently say "you make your 8s backwards". This is something that I could cover up for a short time, but eventually I'd slip up and revert to the backwards style. If you look at a broad selection of Patsy's writing you will see that deception and you will see that as the samples progress, her style reverts to something similar to what is in the note. We are not just talking about one or two unique characters either, we are talking about just about every single character.

The fact that team Ramsey made Patsy's samples so very hard to come by tells you something, they knew it was her writing as well and they knew the more samples that were out there, the more convinced people would be of this.

 

[Anti-K]

I have been a typographer for over 35 years. I am far from an untrained eye and can spot similarities and differences in letter formations from a mile away. I'm far from an untrained eye. You on the other hand....

Wrong field, Andreww. So, yes, your eyes are like the rest of ours – untrained.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This was the first DNA thread I came across when looking for somewhere to move this discussion. The following is also posted on the Who Killed Jonbenet thread in reply to: http://tinyurl.com/om7jq3k

I’m going to try to explain this matching thing in a different way, keeping things really simple, roughly analogous, sort of metaphorical and all that.

First, this is one of the markers used (for real) by CODIS: D3S1358

Second, let’s pretend the markers are colors and that D3S1358 is the color red.

Each color will tell us if it came from Mom or if it came from Dad or from both Mom and Dad. We’ll represented this as MM, or DD, or MD, or DM.
Sample A is a Full Profile. It has all 13 colors.
Sample B has only one marker. It is D3S1358. It is red. It is Red with MM.

Sample A’s Red is also MM.

These samples match. That’s what that means.

A match does not mean that Sample A and Sample B came from the same person. It means that they could have came from the same person. How likely it is that they came from the same person is largely determined by the using the number of markers found in the Sample with the fewest number found.
In this example, everyone with Red DD matches. They are INCLUDED.

Everyone with Red DD, or Red MD, or Red DM is EXCLUDED. That DNA did not come from them.

A DNA match simply means that every single (even if only one) marker that was found, matched.

Just for fun, I’ll throw this is (but, I’m really starting to feel like this should be moved over to a DNA thread). DNA is a numbers game, and in and of itself, only tells us who is included (and to what degree) and who is excluded.

Exclusions are 100 % and determined by only ONE marker. Inclusions are NEVER 100% but they’re going to tell us how many people out of what size group can be included as being the possible source; how close to 100% (1/1) we can get.

I don’t think there is a Court accepted Standard here, but the FBI has determined that, still using the color analogy, a marker such as Red MM will occur once in every group of 13.66 people. 1/13.66.

Every time you have another matching marker you just multiply it by 1/13.66. Try it. The numbers get really big, really fast. Even at five markers, we’re talking about a group of one out of every 400,00+ people. Boulder population was under 100, 00 wasn’t it?
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

This was the first DNA thread I came across when looking for somewhere to move this discussion. The following is also posted on the Who Killed Jonbenet thread in reply to: http://tinyurl.com/om7jq3k

I’m going to try to explain this matching thing in a different way, keeping things really simple, roughly analogous, sort of metaphorical and all that.

First, this is one of the markers used (for real) by CODIS: D3S1358

Second, let’s pretend the markers are colors and that D3S1358 is the color red.

Each color will tell us if it came from Mom or if it came from Dad or from both Mom and Dad. We’ll represented this as MM, or DD, or MD, or DM.
Sample A is a Full Profile. It has all 13 colors.
Sample B has only one marker. It is D3S1358. It is red. It is Red with MM.

Sample A’s Red is also MM.

These samples match. That’s what that means.

A match does not mean that Sample A and Sample B came from the same person. It means that they could have came from the same person. How likely it is that they came from the same person is largely determined by the using the number of markers found in the Sample with the fewest number found.
In this example, everyone with Red DD matches. They are INCLUDED.

Everyone with Red DD, or Red MD, or Red DM is EXCLUDED. That DNA did not come from them.

A DNA match simply means that every single (even if only one) marker that was found, matched.

Just for fun, I’ll throw this is (but, I’m really starting to feel like this should be moved over to a DNA thread). DNA is a numbers game, and in and of itself, only tells us who is included (and to what degree) and who is excluded.

Exclusions are 100 % and determined by only ONE marker. Inclusions are NEVER 100% but they’re going to tell us how many people out of what size group can be included as being the possible source; how close to 100% (1/1) we can get.

I don’t think there is a Court accepted Standard here, but the FBI has determined that, still using the color analogy, a marker such as Red MM will occur once in every group of 13.66 people. 1/13.66.

Every time you have another matching marker you just multiply it by 1/13.66. Try it. The numbers get really big, really fast. Even at five markers, we’re talking about a group of one out of every 400,00+ people. Boulder population was under 100, 00 wasn’t it?
…

AK

I appreciate your need to explain these things to us like we're idiots, Anti-K. So allow me to extend you the same courtesy: being excluded from being the DNA donor (if such a word can be applied) is a far cry from being excluded from being the killer.

 

[Anti-K]

I appreciate your need to explain these things to us like we're idiots, Anti-K. So allow me to extend you the same courtesy: being excluded from being the DNA donor (if such a word can be applied) is a far cry from being excluded from being the killer.

Many, many posters have trouble understanding DNA. I explain things as simply as possible to help those people out. As someone who DOES understand the subject, it is very, very easy for me to recognize someone who does NOT, and you, SuperDave are clearly one of those who does not. The post – your post http://tinyurl.com/om7jq3k - to which my explanation was addressed proves this point (as does virtually everything you post on the topic). So, I hope this explanation was able to help you out, too
.

This DNA (CODIS and matching tDNA) represents a potential suspect who needs to be identified and investigated. This DNA is inculpatory for the donor, and it is exculpatory for everyone who is not the donor.
…

AK