Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Global Justice Ops]

What a descent into the awkward.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi Tadpole12,
I know this was directed at Mama2JML so I hope you don’t mind me intruding. I wonder if you could rephrase your questions as I’m a little confused about what it is that you are asking.

I’m not sure what you mean by “But can one really discriminate the presence of distinct dna, based on mathematical probability, to a qualitative measure?” Distinct DNA would be DNA that has at least one identified marker that does not match a marker in the sample that it is being compared to. In such a case probability is zero.

“Is it not the presence or absence of distinct dna, that dictates the possibility of first or second hand contact?”
Presence of distinct DNA infers that 2 or more profiles exist. This does not indicate secondary transfer, but it would be consistent with secondary transfer. That is, when Person A transfers Peron B’s DNA they usually transfer their own DNA as well.

IOWs, the tDNA found on the leggings was from secondary transfer than we should expect those samples to have been mixed – 2 distinct profiles – one the unsourced DNA in question and the other the DNA of the person who transferred it. We don’t see this.

What I think is often forgotten (or ignored) is that the tDNA found on the leggings was probably skin cells and the non-tDNA found commingled in the victim’s blood on the panties was probably saliva. So, it is unlikely that the tDNA and the non-tDNA transferred from leggings to panties (or, vice versa). Besides, there is no practical or believable way for this DNA to go from the inside crotch of the panties to the outside sides of the leggings.

Excuse typos, etc (if any). In a rush

AK

Ty for the input Anti-K,

What I was wondering about, was if the designation of 10x the amount, with respect to sample size, is at all significant/
open to interpretation.

 

[Anti-K]

I wouldn’t even consider trying to rationalize a forced sexual assault as being equivalent to a voluntary bodily function that is done on a daily basis. Shame on you for trying. If you don’t see the difference, I won’t attempt an explanation.

I feel no shame and have no reason for such, but shame on you for trying to shame me.

I must say that I am surprised that anyone would think that I was comparing or claiming equivalence between a “forced sexual assault” and “a voluntary bodily function.” I was simply pointing out the OBVIOUS – that you can pull someone’s pants down and not get ANYTHING on them regardless of what happens in the area that the pants once covered.

Pants pulled down are pants pulled down, it is only a question of “how far,” and the reason (sexual assault, etc) is almost beside the point.

This shouldn’t even be up for debate, I mean, good grief!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Ty for the input Anti-K,

What I was wondering about, was if the designation of 10x the amount, with respect to sample size, is at all significant/
open to interpretation.

IMO, in this instance, 1/10th is significant. It’s the difference between something useful and something not useful.
I’m not sure what you mean by “open to interpretation.”
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Which does nothing to change the simple fact that the sample was accepted by CODIS, and therefore must have met CODIS standards.

Incidentally, the CODIS requirement is 13 for a known source (for ex. an offender) and 10 if the sample is from an unknown source.

Saying that it “was Barrie Hartman, not Lin Wood, who drew politics into it” does nothing to substantiate your claim that the panty sample is in CODIS only because the FBI “didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down.”
...

AK

So you're saying there would NOT have been bad publicity if they'd turned it down? Team R already tries to make the FBI out to be co-Boogeyman with the BPD.

 

[BBB167893]

What? This makes no sense. I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
...

AK

Okay, I'll expand. The "out of the package" panties that were tested had not come into contact with any other person. In this case, there was DNA from two sources: JB herself, and the unsourced material IDI puts so much stock by. (JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.) So, that DNA is contaminated by JB's own. Henry Lee once explained it.

 

[Anti-K]

So you're saying there would NOT have been bad publicity if they'd turned it down? Team R already tries to make the FBI out to be co-Boogeyman with the BPD.

No, I’m saying that the sample was accepted by CODIS because it met CODIS standards. You’re the one going on about bad publicity, etc. You said that fear of bad publicity is the reason that the sample was accepted. I asked you to substantiate your claim and, so far, you seem unwilling (or, unable) to meet the challenge. No worries, though. I’m hardly interested, because regardless of politics, the sample was accepted by CODIS because it met CODIS standards.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Okay, I'll expand. The "out of the package" panties that were tested had not come into contact with any other person. In this case, there was DNA from two sources: JB herself, and the unsourced material IDI puts so much stock by. (JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.) So, that DNA is contaminated by JB's own. Henry Lee once explained it.

Sorry, but I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. Now you’re simply stating facts as we know them, facts that I (and others) have previously stated.
.

There is no way to say that this foreign component (the CODIS sample) was not fresh. That shows a gross misunderstanding of all things DNA. Indeed, in my experience, most (everything?) that you’ve written about the DNA evidence demonstrates this. You just don’t understand the subject.

If you do understand the subject, than you are intentionally spreading misinformation when you make claims such as “JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.”

If it were true that “the other wasn’t” fresh then “the other” would be meaningless, it wouldn’t be in CODIS and no one would care about it. There would be no controversy, there would be no argument.

But, I digress. Back to the original point: I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. Now you’re simply stating facts as we know them, facts that I (and others) have previously stated.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, but I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.

What a shock.

There is no way to say that this foreign component (the CODIS sample) was not fresh. That shows a gross misunderstanding of all things DNA. Indeed, in my experience, most (everything?) that you’ve written about the DNA evidence demonstrates this. You just don’t understand the subject.

I don't really have to understand the subject. The expert statements cynic provides tell the story. As did Larry Kobalinsky, who said that the DNA did not improve, but the testing and detection methods did.

If you do understand the subject, than you are intentionally spreading misinformation when you make claims such as “JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.”

Don't push me, Anti-K. I know damn well which side spreads misinformation, which is why I switched sides.

If it were true that “the other wasn’t” fresh then “the other” would be meaningless, it wouldn’t be in CODIS and no one would care about it. There would be no controversy, there would be no argument.

That's my POINT! It only got "meaning" because of Team Ramsey's constantly pushing it and Boulder's inability to understand it.

 

[Anti-K]

What a shock.



I don't really have to understand the subject. The expert statements cynic provides tell the story. As did Larry Kobalinsky, who said that the DNA did not improve, but the testing and detection methods did.



Don't push me, Anti-K. I know damn well which side spreads misinformation, which is why I switched sides.



That's my POINT! It only got "meaning" because of Team Ramsey's constantly pushing it and Boulder's inability to understand it.

I’d appreciate it if you would stop editing my posts when quoting. THIS IS DISHONEST.
.

Of course the DNA didn’t improve. How could it? What a silly thing to say!

And, if you don’t; understand the subject - it sure SEEMS as if you DON’T – than why comment on it? And, how can you vouch for the statements of others?

And, YES, you are spreading misinformation when you claim that “JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.”

And, you’re making false (and, obviously), unsubstantiated claims when you say that the DNA (CODIS) sample “only got ‘meaning’ because of Team Ramsey's constantly pushing it and Boulder's inability to understand it.” Who even knows what “Boulder's inability to understand it” even means!! Hola!

The fact remains that the sample was accepted by CODIS because it met CODIS standards.
...

AK

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry, but I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. Now you’re simply stating facts as we know them, facts that I (and others) have previously stated.
.

There is no way to say that this foreign component (the CODIS sample) was not fresh. That shows a gross misunderstanding of all things DNA. Indeed, in my experience, most (everything?) that you’ve written about the DNA evidence demonstrates this. You just don’t understand the subject.

If you do understand the subject, than you are intentionally spreading misinformation when you make claims such as “JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.”

If it were true that “the other wasn’t” fresh then “the other” would be meaningless, it wouldn’t be in CODIS and no one would care about it. There would be no controversy, there would be no argument.

But, I digress. Back to the original point: I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. Now you’re simply stating facts as we know them, facts that I (and others) have previously stated.
...

AK

What you need to understand is that RDI will do everything they can to distort the DNA evidence. They hate it because it is something that proves there was someone else there and the Ramsey's can't be responsible if someone else's DNA is in her underwear. They don't like that the R's have been cleared and so when they look at the DNA they have to cal lit junk science and try and dilute it when if there was DNA in the underwear of any other victim on WS we would be calling it a slam dunk

Thanks for keeping us on track.

 

[aussiesheila2]

DeeDee, you say --

"Had there been oral sexual contact, this exact same DNA from saliva would be in and on her body. It was not."

But JonBenet's body was not tested for DNA, or if it was the information about it was never revealed publicly. So your saying there was no foreign DNA from saliva found on her body is not necessarily correct. It could have been there but was never tested or it could have been there but was degraded by the time of testing.

I also dispute this comment of yours --
"The coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty, which leads me to believe the blood drops were not in the crotch but elsewhere."

I do not believe the coroner ever stated these words or even words to that effect. IMO this comment originated in the spin department of BPD but I'm happy for you to correct me if you know better

 

[aussiesheila2]

reply deleted

 

[aussiesheila2]

reply deleted

 

[Tricia]

No Discussing of other posters.

Come on, I know you all know the rules.

Time out's will be given if this continues.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, you say --

"Had there been oral sexual contact, this exact same DNA from saliva would be in and on her body. It was not."

But JonBenet's body was not tested for DNA, or if it was the information about it was never revealed publicly. So your saying there was no foreign DNA from saliva found on her body is not necessarily correct. It could have been there but was never tested or it could have been there but was degraded by the time of testing.

I also dispute this comment of yours --
"The coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty, which leads me to believe the blood drops were not in the crotch but elsewhere."

I do not believe the coroner ever stated these words or even words to that effect. IMO this comment originated in the spin department of BPD but I'm happy for you to correct me if you know better

I don't really care what you believe. No point in correcting someone like you.

 

[Anti-K]

DeeDee, you say --

"Had there been oral sexual contact, this exact same DNA from saliva would be in and on her body. It was not."

But JonBenet's body was not tested for DNA, or if it was the information about it was never revealed publicly. So your saying there was no foreign DNA from saliva found on her body is not necessarily correct. It could have been there but was never tested or it could have been there but was degraded by the time of testing.

I also dispute this comment of yours --
"The coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty, which leads me to believe the blood drops were not in the crotch but elsewhere."

I do not believe the coroner ever stated these words or even words to that effect. IMO this comment originated in the spin department of BPD but I'm happy for you to correct me if you know better

BBM

As far as I know, the oft-repeated claim of Meyer saying that the blood spots on the panties “did not correspond,” etc comes from the Boulder Search Warrant:
“Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth."

Of course, the conclusion some RDI draw from this – DeeDee249 for example – ignores the fact that Meyer’s opinion was that the “the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth."

Perhaps, DeeDee249 (I have seen other RDI voice the same) has a different source upon which her opinion is based but I don’t recall ever seeing such.
...

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

What you need to understand is that RDI will do everything they can to distort the DNA evidence. They hate it because it is something that proves there was someone else there and the Ramsey's can't be responsible if someone else's DNA is in her underwear. They don't like that the R's have been cleared and so when they look at the DNA they have to cal lit junk science and try and dilute it when if there was DNA in the underwear of any other victim on WS we would be calling it a slam dunk

Thanks for keeping us on track.

How do you account for this person leaving 10 markers worth of DNA on her clothing, but only 7 markers worth on the garrote and 6 markers worth on the wrist bindings?

I think it's possible for the DNA that was found on her clothes to have been on the carpet from a previous time.

 

[aussiesheila2]

BBM

As far as I know, the oft-repeated claim of Meyer saying that the blood spots on the panties “did not correspond,” etc comes from the Boulder Search Warrant:
“Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth."

Of course, the conclusion some RDI draw from this – DeeDee249 for example – ignores the fact that Meyer’s opinion was that the “the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth."

Perhaps, DeeDee249 (I have seen other RDI voice the same) has a different source upon which her opinion is based but I don’t recall ever seeing such.
...

AK

Thanks for that AK, I couldn't quite remember where that claim originated but I knew is was not directly from Meyer. So it was only Arndt paraphrasing what she thought Meyer had said.

(edit) Actually no, it was Byfield paraphrasing what he thought Arndt had said who was paraphrasing what she thought Meyer had said. Hmm, I wonder just how reliable what was written in that search warrant actually is?

 

[andreww]

DeeDee, you say --

"Had there been oral sexual contact, this exact same DNA from saliva would be in and on her body. It was not."

But JonBenet's body was not tested for DNA, or if it was the information about it was never revealed publicly. So your saying there was no foreign DNA from saliva found on her body is not necessarily correct. It could have been there but was never tested or it could have been there but was degraded by the time of testing.

I also dispute this comment of yours --
"The coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty, which leads me to believe the blood drops were not in the crotch but elsewhere."

I do not believe the coroner ever stated these words or even words to that effect. IMO this comment originated in the spin department of BPD but I'm happy for you to correct me if you know better

In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light to view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh.
Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result qf the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.
Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs from the child's body.

So it appears that swabs were taken from various places on Jonbenet's body. One can only assume that no foreign DNA was found in those samples?

My other question regards the fact that Patsy admitted putting the long johns on JB when she put her to bed (according to her anyway), so why wasn't her DNA found on the long johns? If this is such an exact science, her DNA should have been there or she was lying about getting her dressed right?