Discussion of "Overkill - The Unsolved Murder of Jon Benet" doco crime scene footage

[BBB167893]

Nope. More testing doesn't invalidate what's been done already.

I was referring to before Mary Lacy stole the case from them.

 

[searchinGirl]

Your wish is my command.

Foreign Faction, p304:

[LaBerge] indicated that the male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.

I strive to please.

Will you translate that into % complete because I don't have pages numbers on my kindle version.

 

[BBB167893]

Transfer. I have a cute little ugly Christmas sweater that leaves visible fibers everywhere I go. It gets all over my duct tape.

Number one, IIRC, this didn't get "all over" it, but was a pattern.

Number two, does it get into your cord knots and paint tote, too? Which you supposedly never owned and never went near while wearing it, respectively?

 

[BBB167893]

Will you translate that into % complete because I don't have pages numbers on my kindle version.

I haven't got a kindle myself. The best I can do is say that it's right near the beginning of Chapter 30, "New Questions Emerge." Which is right at the start of Part 3.

 

[Ambitioned]

I'll supply the drinks! (Alcoholic and non alcoholic!)

 

[Miz Adventure]

I'll supply the drinks! (Alcoholic and non alcoholic!)

They look good!

 

[searchinGirl]

Your wish is my command.

Foreign Faction, p304:

[LaBerge] indicated that the male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.

I strive to please.

Ok I'm back. Sorry for the overnight delay but I fell asleep. I found this passage at about 60% so I'm guessing the book is about 500 pages?

Kolar said this interview with Greg Laberge was over lunch in December 2006. Laberge says the sample was "weak". Kolar seems a bit over-focused on this. Does he not realize that once the process is done, the sample has become data? I'm pretty sure the strength of a sample is indicated by how many markers are identified and not in how minuscule it was to begin with; in this case, the initial testing yielded 9 markers. Nonetheless, he goes on to state even weaker samples of the "same genetic material" were found as you say above.

I have some curiosity about that. The waistband and leg bands were tested for stains? And yielded similar results? Of the same genetic material? And, when Kolar asks Laberge who it could belong to, his first answer is "the perpetrator", but the goes on to talk about factory workers in Taiwan?

At about 82% (pg 410~) when Kolar updates his take on the tDNA. He says Horita said additional results on the garrote, paintbrush handle, and wrist ligatures yielded additional partial profiles. Yet, as someone said before, the lab report of 3/24/08 says those items weren't tested. They could have been test after the fact by why is Kolar leaking that info?

Another thing he said was that the DNA on the nightgown belonged to Patsy & Burke. That is disingenuous. Neither can be included or excluded with one marker in common.

 

[BBB167893]

Ok I'm back. Sorry for the overnight delay but I fell asleep. I found this passage at about 60% so I'm guessing the book is about 500 pages?

That sounds about right.

Kolar said this interview with Greg Laberge was over lunch in December 2006. Laberge says the sample was "weak". Kolar seems a bit over-focused on this.

LaBerge himself has said elsewhere that he has doubts about the DNA.

Does he not realize that once the process is done, the sample has become data? I'm pretty sure the strength of a sample is indicated by how many markers are identified and not in how minuscule it was to begin with; in this case, the initial testing yielded 9 markers. Nonetheless, he goes on to state even weaker samples of the "same genetic material" were found as you say above.

I guess you'd have to ask them about it. Although, I'm not sure the "weak" part referred to the size, rather that it had allele dropout. Dan Krane has spoken on this as well.

I have some curiosity about that. The waistband and leg bands were tested for stains?

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they tested ALL of the underwear. Not necessarily for stains, either.

And yielded similar results? Of the same genetic material?

Admittedly, this is something I wish they were more specific on.

And, when Kolar asks Laberge who it could belong to, his first answer is "the perpetrator", but the goes on to talk about factory workers in Taiwan?

Actually, the exact passage reads:

"LaBerge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion."

That fits with what LaBerge has said publicly.

At about 82% (pg 410~) when Kolar updates his take on the tDNA. He says Horita said additional results on the garrote, paintbrush handle, and wrist ligatures yielded additional partial profiles. Yet, as someone said before, the lab report of 3/24/08 says those items weren't tested.

The meeting with Horita you refer to took place almost a year later.

They could have been test after the fact by why is Kolar leaking that info?

What difference does that make? I'm more interested in how Mary Lacy used this to bamboozle the public. Why don't we call a spade a spade here: Lacy was looking for a way to knock down the factory worker notion, and she was going to take whatever she could GET.

 

[searchinGirl]

That sounds about right.
LaBerge himself has said elsewhere that he has doubts about the DNA.
I guess you'd have to ask them about it. Although, I'm not sure the "weak" part referred to the size, rather that it had allele dropout. Dan Krane has spoken on this as well. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they tested ALL of the underwear. Not necessarily for stains, either.
Admittedly, this is something I wish they were more specific on.
Actually, the exact passage reads:
"LaBerge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion."
That fits with what LaBerge has said publicly.
The meeting with Horita you refer to took place almost a year later.
What difference does that make? I'm more interested in how Mary Lacy used this to bamboozle the public. Why don't we call a spade a spade here: Lacy was looking for a way to knock down the factory worker notion, and she was going to take whatever she could GET.

I guess you think that is why she authorized additional testing when there was already the DNA profile in CODIS? To dispel any notion of a factory worker? That may be a true motivation for Mary Lacy but what is Kolar's motivation? I mean who is attempting to bamboozle who? Whatever the takeaway from his lunch with LaBerge, Kolar wants the reader to think that LaBerge dismissed his own work as insignificant and thinks the perp in the panties is a Taiwanese boy factory worker. Furthermore, Kolar states that LaBerge reveals the tests done on out-of-the-package underwear yielded results only 1/10 as strong as the already weak sample in CODIS but that somehow further proves the sample in CODIS is really, really weak.

The trouble with this DNA debate is that clearly there were different sets of testing done at differing places and at different times; Yet, people take positive or negative results of any one test, and then apply their arguments to the DNA as a whole. For example, Bode does mention allelic dropout on some 2 of the samples not suitable for comparison but still found common alleles with the UM1 sample from the panties with the two places on the outside waistband of her longjohns. One profile emerges that would suggest the possibility of a intruder; whereas the unsuitable stains, and the ones that might be a "composite profile", don't disprove that notion.

 

[BBB167893]

I guess you think that is why she authorized additional testing when there was already the DNA profile in CODIS? To dispel any notion of a factory worker?

I think that was a big part of it, yes.

That may be a true motivation for Mary Lacy but what is Kolar's motivation?

Um, to solve the case, maybe?

I mean who is attempting to bamboozle who?

I should think that answer is fairly obvious by now!

Whatever the takeaway from his lunch with LaBerge, Kolar wants the reader to think that LaBerge dismissed his own work as insignificant and thinks the perp in the panties is a Taiwanese boy factory worker.

That seems to be your interpretation of it. All I can say for certain is that LaBerge himself has expressed doubt as to the DNA's value, case-wise. You can't blame Kolar for that.

Furthermore, Kolar states that LaBerge reveals the tests done on out-of-the-package underwear yielded results only 1/10 as strong as the already weak sample in CODIS but that somehow further proves the sample in CODIS is really, really weak.

I suppose you have a different take on it?

The trouble with this DNA debate is that clearly there were different sets of testing done at differing places and at different times; Yet, people take positive or negative results of any one test, and then apply their arguments to the DNA as a whole.

Mary Lacy, for one!

For example, Bode does mention allelic dropout on some 2 of the samples not suitable for comparison but still found common alleles with the UM1 sample from the panties with the two places on the outside waistband of her longjohns.

Yes, that was what Gordon Coombes pointed out.

One profile emerges that would suggest the possibility of a intruder; whereas the unsuitable stains, and the ones that might be a "composite profile", don't disprove that notion.

Begging your pardon, but I believe what started this conversation was the revelation that there WAS other DNA on the panties besides the bloodspots. I can't help but notice your attempt to avoid the implication.

 

[searchinGirl]

I think that was a big part of it, yes.



Um, to solve the case, maybe?



I should think that answer is fairly obvious by now!



That seems to be your interpretation of it. All I can say for certain is that LaBerge himself has expressed doubt as to the DNA's value, case-wise. You can't blame Kolar for that.



I suppose you have a different take on it?



Mary Lacy, for one!



Yes, that was what Gordon Coombes pointed out.



Begging your pardon, but I believe what started this conversation was the revelation that there WAS other DNA on the panties besides the bloodspots. I can't help but notice your attempt to avoid the implication.

Finding extraneous DNA 1/10 the "strength" does not make the original sample weaker. Finding the "same genetic material" on other parts of the panties increases the probability the DNA profile belongs to the killer.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

What do you think about the testimony of Richard Eikelenbloom? Who has claimed to work on the DNA results for the JonBenet Ramsey case, helping to exonerate the Ramseys via DNA and who was apparently hired for his 'expertise' in the recent pro-Ramsey biased A&E documentary.

It seems as though he was the originator of the hispanic male tDNA sample claim.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/10/cold-case-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case/

Plenty of other articles out there, some especially damning. Check for yourself. I am skeptical as to how much influence he truly had on the case as a DNA expert, but the fact remains that various media are consulting with him to offer 'insights' which seem to be focused on exonerating the Ramseys. Check out the other cases he's testified for and on which side (hint: usually the defendant), as well as other comments he's made on high profile murder cases.

Sorry but I trust the Bode report over these kinds of charlatans.

 

[kanzz]

What do you think about the testimony of Richard Eikelenbloom? Who has claimed to work on the DNA results for the JonBenet Ramsey case, helping to exonerate the Ramseys via DNA and who was apparently hired for his 'expertise' in the recent pro-Ramsey biased A&E documentary.

It seems as though he was the originator of the hispanic male tDNA sample claim.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/10/cold-case-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case/

Plenty of other articles out there, some especially damning. Check for yourself. I am skeptical as to how much influence he truly had on the case as a DNA expert, but the fact remains that various media are consulting with him to offer 'insights' which seem to be focused on exonerating the Ramseys. Check out the other cases he's testified for and on which side (hint: usually the defendant), as well as other comments he's made on high profile murder cases.

Sorry but I trust the Bode report over these kinds of charlatans.

One word: Charlatan

Oh, one more: Discredited

 

[searchinGirl]

What do you think about the testimony of Richard Eikelenbloom? Who has claimed to work on the DNA results for the JonBenet Ramsey case, helping to exonerate the Ramseys via DNA and who was apparently hired for his 'expertise' in the recent pro-Ramsey biased A&E documentary.

It seems as though he was the originator of the hispanic male tDNA sample claim.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/10/cold-case-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case/

Plenty of other articles out there, some especially damning. Check for yourself. I am skeptical as to how much influence he truly had on the case as a DNA expert, but the fact remains that various media are consulting with him to offer 'insights' which seem to be focused on exonerating the Ramseys. Check out the other cases he's testified for and on which side (hint: usually the defendant), as well as other comments he's made on high profile murder cases.

Sorry but I trust the Bode report over these kinds of charlatans.

I don't have any disrespect for the man. The trouble with forming opinions on this case is that people are willing to assasinate the character of anyone who disagrees or thinks for herself. Eikelenboom is no charletan, in spite of the sucker punch from Morrisey.

 

[BBB167893]

Finding extraneous DNA 1/10 the "strength" does not make the original sample weaker.

I'm not aware of anyone who says it does.

I want to be clear on this. You said, quote, "Kolar states that LaBerge reveals the tests done on out-of-the-package underwear yielded results only 1/10 as strong as the already weak sample in CODIS but that somehow further proves the sample in CODIS is really, really weak."

Now, I provided the actual quote from Kolar's book. And I don't find that implication at all. It sounds more like LaBerge was just giving it to him straight.

Finding the "same genetic material" on other parts of the panties increases the probability the DNA profile belongs to the killer.

Except, those are the areas that would be handled most during production.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't have any disrespect for the man.

That tells me a lot.

The trouble with forming opinions on this case is that people are willing to assassinate the character of anyone who disagrees or thinks for herself.

In the case of people like Eikelenboom, you can't assassinate their character. You cannot take away what someone does NOT have.

Eikelenboom is no charlatan, in spite of the sucker punch from Morrisey.

"Sucker punch," my fat Irish butt. Eikeleboom's a fake, pure and simple. No use blaming Morrissey for that.

 

[BoldBear]

There's also the example that if JB picked-up DNA from some other source, had it on her hands going to the potty, she'd pull up her pants and touch the same areas they tested for tDNA. Secondary transference done by the victim.

 

[searchinGirl]

There's also the example that if JB picked-up DNA from some other source, had it on her hands going to the potty, she'd pull up her pants and touch the same areas they tested for tDNA. Secondary transference done by the victim.

I think that would depend on when the panties were put on her body. It's a remarkable coincidence that saliva DNA found its way to the exact spot she bled on and then turned into skin cells on her longjohns.

 

[searchinGirl]

That tells me a lot. In the case of people like Eikelenboom, you can't assassinate their character. You cannot take away what someone does NOT have. "Sucker punch," my fat Irish butt. Eikeleboom's a fake, pure and simple. No use blaming Morrissey for that.

He's not a fake because he is recognized world-wide for his accomplishments. I think Morrisey has a burr in his butt over the Tim Masters case. As far as not being able to take away what someone doesn't have, Kolar doesn't have a case against Burke; there is that.

 

[flourish]

He's not a fake because he is recognized world-wide for his accomplishments. I think Morrisey has a burr in his butt over the Tim Masters case. As far as not being able to take away what someone doesn't have, Kolar doesn't have a case against Burke; there is that.

Is worldwide recognition the standard for determining someone's legitimacy? If so, I think that method is flawed. If not, then it proves nothing about this man.