Fatal Friends, Deadly Neighbors: Ann Rule's Crime Files

[CuriousGeorgia]

Well, we do know that Dina is a "scientist" because she said so herself...........

If by any chance you are insinuating I'm Dina, you are quite wrong. I'm not Dina, Nina, or GS, and I've never claimed to be an insider.
Not sure if that is what you meant?

 

[MyBelle]

The glove itself is evidence. Certainly it should have been tested for DNA and fingerprints.

Ignoring evidence of anyone else on the balcony is not lack of evidence.

There were no footprints of anyone else on the balcony. Nobody levitated and tossed over a hundred pound body. DNA testing can be pretty expensive and taxpayers might consider it a wasteful expenditure when there is no indication it is of evidentiary value.

JMO

 

[time]

BTW, the first link was useless. It is about a study of measurable DNA.

The second link said, "It is sometimes possible to gain viable DNA profiles from highly degraded samples that may be old or may have been subjected to outside interference."

So that much different that what I said.


The DNA at the scene that was NOT Rebecca's was not even enough to MEASURE. So please tell me, if the DNA cannot be MEASURED, which is how you get a genetic profile, HOW are you going to get that information from it?

Answer: Can't be done.

Can you point us to the reference that says any DNA other than Rebecca's was NOT measurable?

I tend to think they were trying to claim either that profiles could not be separated and/or they were claiming they could not get a complete enough of a profile to identify an individual with any high probability. On some evidence, they were basically either claiming it was not really evidence related to Rebecca's death or that they could assume it did not need to be tested at all. Beyond that, I don't think they tried very hard to identify (type/get profiles of) foreign DNA.

 

[coastal]

So Max is now 8, fell off a balcony, and Jonah is suddendly a billionaire?

That's doesn't bode well for this book being very factual, does it?

FYI:
Jonah Shacknai sells Scottsdale-based Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. for $2.6 billion to Valeant
09/03/2012

TORONTO - Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. has agreed to buy dermatology products maker Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. for about $2.6 billion in cash in a deal to strengthen its position in skin treatments and care.
Montreal-based Valeant, Canada's largest publicly-traded pharmaceuticals company, said Monday that it has agreed to pay $44 per share for Medicis, a 39 percent premium over Friday's closing price of $31.87 for the Scottsdale, Ariz., target company.

The boards of both companies have approved the deal. It needs approval by Medicis shareholders and regulatory clearance. The companies hope to complete the deal in early 2013.

(article continues)

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/natio...for-medicis-pharmaceutical-corp#ixzz29TwMj1VR

<<<snip

 

[MyBelle]

FYI:
Jonah Shacknai sells Scottsdale-based Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. for $2.6 billion to Valeant
09/03/2012

TORONTO - Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. has agreed to buy dermatology products maker Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. for about $2.6 billion in cash in a deal to strengthen its position in skin treatments and care.
Montreal-based Valeant, Canada's largest publicly-traded pharmaceuticals company, said Monday that it has agreed to pay $44 per share for Medicis, a 39 percent premium over Friday's closing price of $31.87 for the Scottsdale, Ariz., target company.

The boards of both companies have approved the deal. It needs approval by Medicis shareholders and regulatory clearance. The companies hope to complete the deal in early 2013.

(article continues)

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/natio...for-medicis-pharmaceutical-corp#ixzz29TwMj1VR

<<<snip

I'm fairly confident that Jonah is not the only shareholder of Medicis thus only a fraction of the $2.6 billion will actually go into his pocket. That said, there is no doubt he is a very wealthy man.

JMO

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Can you point us to the reference that says any DNA other than Rebecca's was NOT measurable?

BBM

Were there prints and DNA on the knives?

The small knife had Rebecca’s DNA, and only Rebecca’s DNA. No fingerprints were developed from this item. The large knife had Rebecca’s fingerprints, and only Rebecca’s fingerprints. A low level of DNA material was found on this knife as well, but it was not enough for any comparison.

Were there prints and DNA on the rope?

Rebecca’s DNA was found on the rope, particularly in areas that would have to be manipulated to tie the knots. Only Rebecca’s DNA was found on these items other than one “artifact,” which is a fragment of material that could be DNA, but does not contain enough information to determine who, or what, it came from (animals and plants also have DNA that can be left behind). The rope could not be fingerprinted.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/coronado/faq.html

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

You claimed you KNOW all about DNA, specifically trace DNA. Reread your own posts. So what if you sat on one jury and convicted a man because of DNA? So that means you have scientific knowledge about trace DNA and how it works? Well, it is obvious that you don't.

If you read ANY of the science relating to DNA engineering from the past decade to the present, you would not need to ask how to measure trace DNA. I'm not going to sit here and explain anything to you just because you don't want to put in the little effort to do the simple reading yourself.
I already referred you to two easy-to-comprehend, elementary articles which discuss such trace DNA research. If you indeed KNOW anything about trace DNA, you would be able to answer your own confusions. If you need further help, ask the scientists who published the articles. Better yet, go visit a genetics and/or DNA cloning labs and observe some real science. Otherwise, don't tell us you KNOW about trace DNA when you have minimal comprehension about it.

The links you provided did not have anything to do with low level DNA. Again, "trace" DNA has been enough genetic profile to be measured. If there is not enough genntic profile to measure...YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT.

Here is a link that may explain it better for you


Degradation. As samples age, DNA like any chemical begins to break down (or degrade). This process occurs slowly if the samples are carefully preserved but can occur rapidly when the samples are exposed for even a short time to unfavorable conditions, such as warmth, moisture or sunlight.

Degradation skews the relationship between peak heights and the quantity of DNA present. Generally, degradation produces a downward slope across the electropherograms in the height of peaks because degradation is more likely to interfere with the detection of longer sequences of repeated DNA (the alleles on the right side of the electropherogram) than shorter sequences (alleles on the left side).

Degraded samples can be difficult to type. The process of degradation can reduce the height of some peaks, making them too low to be distinguished reliably from background "noise" in the data, or making them disappear entirely, while other peaks from the same sample can still be scored. In mixed samples, it may be impossible to determine whether the alleles of one or more contributors have become undetectable at some loci. Often analysts simply guess whether all alleles have been detected or not, which renders their conclusions speculative and leaves the results open to a variety of alternative interpretations. Further, the two or more biological samples that make up a mixture may show different levels of degradation, perhaps due to their having been deposited at different times or due to differences in the protection offered by different cell types. Such possibilities make the interpretation of degraded mixed samples particularly prone to subjective (unscientific) interpretation.


http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

DNA analysis is frequently used to acquire information from biological material to aid enquiries associated with criminal offences, disaster victim identification and missing persons investigations. As the relevance and value of DNA profiling to forensic investigations has increased, so too has the desire to generate this information from smaller amounts of DNA. Trace DNA samples may be defined as any sample which falls below recommended thresholds at any stage of the analysis, from sample detection through to profile interpretation, and can not be defined by a precise picogram amount.

Whilst several methodological changes have facilitated profiling from trace samples in recent years it is also clear that many opportunities exist for further improvements.


http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/1/1/14

 

[inthedark14]

The links you provided did not have anything to do with low level DNA. Again, "trace" DNA has been enough genetic profile to be measured. If there is not enough genntic profile to measure...YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT.

Here is a link that may explain it better for you


Degradation. As samples age, DNA like any chemical begins to break down (or degrade). This process occurs slowly if the samples are carefully preserved but can occur rapidly when the samples are exposed for even a short time to unfavorable conditions, such as warmth, moisture or sunlight.

Degradation skews the relationship between peak heights and the quantity of DNA present. Generally, degradation produces a downward slope across the electropherograms in the height of peaks because degradation is more likely to interfere with the detection of longer sequences of repeated DNA (the alleles on the right side of the electropherogram) than shorter sequences (alleles on the left side).

Degraded samples can be difficult to type. The process of degradation can reduce the height of some peaks, making them too low to be distinguished reliably from background "noise" in the data, or making them disappear entirely, while other peaks from the same sample can still be scored. In mixed samples, it may be impossible to determine whether the alleles of one or more contributors have become undetectable at some loci. Often analysts simply guess whether all alleles have been detected or not, which renders their conclusions speculative and leaves the results open to a variety of alternative interpretations. Further, the two or more biological samples that make up a mixture may show different levels of degradation, perhaps due to their having been deposited at different times or due to differences in the protection offered by different cell types. Such possibilities make the interpretation of degraded mixed samples particularly prone to subjective (unscientific) interpretation.


http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

I guess it's a good thing that the SDSO and the ME office allowed RZ's body to lay out in the sun for 13 hours then, right?

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Three types of results can occur in DNA testing: inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. It is important that victim service providers understand the meaning of these terms and be able to explain their implications.

Inclusion. When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is &#8220;included&#8221; as the possible source of that evidence. However, the strength of inclu- sion depends upon the number of loci (locations on the DNA strand) examined and how common or rare the resulting DNA profile is in the general population.

Exclusion. When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence, the individual is &#8220;exclud- ed&#8221; as the donor of the evidence. However, exclusion does not imply innocence. In a rape case, for example,a perpetrator wearing a condom could be excluded as a suspect because no semen was found at the crime scene, but evidence found elsewhere at the crime scene may include that same person as a suspect.

Inconclusive. Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons: for example, the quality or quantity of DNA may be insufficient to produce inter- pretable results, or the evidentiary sample may contain a mixture of DNA from several individuals (e.g., a sample taken from a victim of a gang rape).

As with all DNA testing results, additional testing may be needed and findings should be interpreted in the context of other evidence in the case.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf

 

[time]

<snip>
As far as the DNA goes, I have been a juror on a three-strikes rape case. I am happy to say we put the away for life.

DNA was used in the case and we had a very long and detailed lesson by both of the lawyers. TRACE DNA usually means the DNA is old. It means there is not DNA in any level high enough to read.

Gloves would NOT keep someone's DNA from being SOMEWHERE around Rebecca or the ropes that she hung herself with. You can leave DNA by simply breathing.

Just above, you cited the exact same reference that I provided at the top of the page.

Again, Trace DNA does not mean it is old or degraded.

Trace DNA does not mean there is so little of it that it can't be read. That's possible but not a given.

And, where is there any reference that in criminal cases they have ever caught a perp because of leaving their DNA by BREATHING???

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Just so no one gets confused on what it IS:

"Trace DNA samples may be defined as any sample which falls below recommended thresholds at any stage of the analysis, from sample detection through \to profile interpretation, and can not be defined by a precise picogram amount. Here we review aspects associated with the collection, DNA extraction, amplification, profiling and interpretation of trace DNA samples."

http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/1/1/14

That means the levels are not high enough to MEASURE. (the layman's term) EQUALS "cannot be defined by a PRECISE PICOGRAM AMOUNT. "

 

[time]

That means the levels are not high enough to MEASURE. (the layman's term) EQUALS "cannot be defined by a PRECISE PICOGRAM AMOUNT. "

<modsnip>

"Here we review aspects associated with the collection, DNA extraction, amplification, profiling and interpretation of trace DNA samples."

I would never say dealing with this size sample isn't tricky. But you can collect, extract, and analyze trace DNA. It would possibly provide leads in the case because, again, certain people's DNA should not be there.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

There is a DNA expert here on WS's. I wish she would weigh in to let us know how DNA that cannot provide a genetic profile can be traced to anyone. If you can't get a genetic profile, how on earth can you prove it belongs so someone?

 

[time]

There is a DNA expert here on WS's. I wish she would weigh in to let us know how DNA that cannot provide a genetic profile can be traced to anyone. If you can't get a genetic profile, how on earth can you prove it belongs so someone?

Oh, boy ... I think you are missing the points. Of course, IF you can't get a genetic profile then you can't say it belongs to anyone.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

So...SDSO couldn't get a genetic profile...like I have been trying to say...


The small knife had Rebecca&#8217;s DNA, and only Rebecca&#8217;s DNA. No fingerprints were developed from this item. The large knife had Rebecca&#8217;s fingerprints, and only Rebecca&#8217;s fingerprints. A low level of DNA material was found on this knife as well, but it was not enough for any comparison.

Rebecca&#8217;s DNA was found on the rope, particularly in areas that would have to be manipulated to tie the knots. Only Rebecca&#8217;s DNA was found on these items other than one &#8220;artifact,&#8221; which is a fragment of material that could be DNA, but does not contain enough information to determine who, or what, it came from (animals and plants also have DNA that can be left behind). The rope could not be fingerprinted.

 

[Betty P]

So...SDSO couldn't get a genetic profile...like I have been trying to say...


The small knife had Rebecca’s DNA, and only Rebecca’s DNA. No fingerprints were developed from this item. The large knife had Rebecca’s fingerprints, and only Rebecca’s fingerprints. A low level of DNA material was found on this knife as well, but it was not enough for any comparison.

Rebecca’s DNA was found on the rope, particularly in areas that would have to be manipulated to tie the knots. Only Rebecca’s DNA was found on these items other than one “artifact,” which is a fragment of material that could be DNA, but does not contain enough information to determine who, or what, it came from (animals and plants also have DNA that can be left behind). The rope could not be fingerprinted.

Let's not forget there were gloves found in the room as well. Those were not tested, that we know of.

It's rather common practice for criminals engaged in homicide to wear gloves while committing crimes, to prevent leaving fingerprint evidence. That could explain the lack of other fingerprints on the items SDSO checked.

But because SDSO didn't do a thorough investigation of the house for DNA and fingerprint evidence, we don't know if fingerprint evidence from others was present at the crime scene. Since the mansion was locked down and remodeled, all that evidence has been destroyed.

 

[K_Z]

Gosh, maybe it's just me, but it seems that the topic of this thread has very effectively been deflected and derailed.

Hmmm. Wonder why someone would want to do THAT?

Maybe because the topic of this thread, which was Ann Rule's upcoming book release, may not be favorable to those who don't agree with Ann Rule's observations? AR has had interviews that indicate she believes Rebecca's death looks like a homicide. And AR has helped solve at least one case that was a homicide that was initially ruled a suicide. She has also successfully defended libel accusations for her opinions in her books.

Ann Rule's book will bring renewed interest and publicity to both Max's and Rebecca's deaths-- that is undisputed. After all, every single book she has ever written (30+) has made the NY Times bestseller list. So, using history as a predictor, there is a better than average chance that THIS book will also make the NYT list, right? And many of AR's books have sold into the MILLIONS of copies. That seems to be a substantial audience, right?

So, I'm detecting a "counter threat-ops" mission in full swing here. Argue, deflect, distract, deny, derail... change the subject at all costs.

Otherwise, why would anyone try so hard to derail a thread about a book release? Hmm?

1000+ page loads in 24 hours tells the story. IMO.

<...crickets...>

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

I don't see anyone trying to "derail a thread about a book release". All these conspiracy theories are going too far, IMO.

What I see are moderators warning us all to stay on topic on MANY threads because they all get off on subjects that do not belong on that thread.

So, back on topic...

It seems that the original book teaser that was posted has been changed to a new one:

TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT

It&#8217;s a chilling reality that homicide investigators know all too well: the last face most murder victims see is not that of a stranger, but of someone familiar. Whether only an acquaintance or a trusted intimate, such killers share a common trait that triggers the downward spiral toward death for someone close to them: they are masters at hiding who they really are. Their clever masks let them appear safe, kind, and truthful. They are anything but&#8212;and almost no one can detect the murderous impulses buried deep in their psyches.

These doomed relationships are the focus of Ann Rule&#8217;s sixteenth all-new Crime Files collection. In these shattering inside views of both headlined and little-known homicides, Rule speaks for vulnerable victims who relied on the wrong people. She begins with two startling novella-length investigations.

In July 2011, a billionaire&#8217;s Coronado, California, mansion was the setting for two horrifying deaths only days apart&#8212;his young son&#8217;s plunge from a balcony and his girlfriend&#8217;s ghastly hanging. What really happened? Baffling questions remain unanswered, as these cases were closed far too soon for hundreds of people; Rule looks at them now through the eyes of a relentless crime reporter. The second probe began in Utah when Susan Powell vanished in a 2009 blizzard. Her controlling husband, Josh, proved capable of a blind rage that was heartbreakingly fatal to his innocent small sons almost three years later in a tragedy that shocked America as the details unfolded. If anyone had detected the depth of depravity within Josh Powell, perhaps the family that loved and trusted him would have been saved. In these and seven other riveting cases, Ann Rule exposes the twisted truth behind the façades of Fatal Friends, Deadly Neighbors.

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Fatal-Friends-Deadly-Neighbors/Ann-Rule/9781451648287

 

[justice be served]

Gosh, maybe it's just me, but it seems that the topic of this thread has very effectively been deflected and derailed.

Hmmm. Wonder why someone would want to do THAT?

Maybe because the topic of this thread, which was Ann Rule's upcoming book release, may not be favorable to those who don't agree with Ann Rule's observations? AR has had interviews that indicate she believes Rebecca's death looks like a homicide. And AR has helped solve at least one case that was a homicide that was initially ruled a suicide. She has also successfully defended libel accusations for her opinions in her books.

Ann Rule's book will bring renewed interest and publicity to both Max's and Rebecca's deaths-- that is undisputed. After all, every single book she has ever written (30+) has made the NY Times bestseller list. So, using history as a predictor, there is a better than average chance that THIS book will also make the NYT list, right? And many of AR's books have sold into the MILLIONS of copies. That seems to be a substantial audience, right?

So, I'm detecting a "counter threat-ops" mission in full swing here. Argue, deflect, distract, deny, derail... change the subject at all costs.

Otherwise, why would anyone try so hard to derail a thread about a book release? Hmm?

1000+ page loads in 24 hours tells the story. IMO.

<...crickets...>

KZ, I can't agree more. It seems to me that when the thread started on Ann Rule's book just the other day that these forums erupted. No one can deny certainly that SDSO's ruling of suicide has been not easily accepted by the MAJORITY of the public which is why, once more, this book represents the MAJORITY of people that believe Rebecca was MURDERED brutally and that law enforcement has bought into the madness of supporting a far-fetched theory that Rebecca committed suicide. No matter how many articles are scrubbed, lawyers threatening defamation and law enforcement protecting their shoddy investigations, illegally holding onto evidence on a closed case, the fact remains that logical thinking people don't buy the results and this booknwill, thankfully, keep the case alive because people did not drink law enforcements Koolaid and smart people are not buying it.