IDI: Whats your problem?

[WHITEFANG]

Our beloved judiciary.
Handwriting analysis qualifies as admissible evidence but not polygraph test results.
For those enormous *advertiser censored*, a.k.a. some of the Boulder Police, particularly those total idiots who arrived on the scene initially, not to scour every inch of the house to find clues and evidence, is a complete disgrace. Not to secure the crime scene immediately was pathetic, as well. Not to give explicit instructions on what to do upon finding any items of potential evidence, ie., a corpse, as in not touching it or moving it, was almost criminal. Using those present to conduct a search in the first place was a disaster.

The greatest fear most people acknowledge is the fear of speaking in front of a crowd. The Ramseys were literally hoisted up upon the world stage to speak in front of hundreds of millions of people/strangers and to answer accusatory questions screamed at them from a belligerent, cold and calculating media about their involvement in the horrific murder of their 6 year old daughter. They were given about 9 minutes to prepare for both.

They should have been given the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 11. The results are objective, thorough and designed to detect levels of deception and transparency. It tests for a wide spectrum of pathology.

For anyone with questions about the integrity of our judicial system and the Ramsey's reluctance to take a polygraph administered by the FBI and the BP, I can assure you they were smart to resist. Trust me, a Plaintiff in a civil case can be threatened with incarceration (and incarcerated) by a corrupt judge. Credible evidence on either side may be rejected without recourse depending on how vile the judge is. Remember Hattie Carroll?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Our beloved judiciary.
Handwriting analysis qualifies as admissible evidence but not polygraph test results.
For those enormous *advertiser censored*, a.k.a. some of the Boulder Police, particularly those total idiots who arrived on the scene initially, not to scour every inch of the house to find clues and evidence, is a complete disgrace. Not to secure the crime scene immediately was pathetic, as well. Not to give explicit instructions on what to do upon finding any items of potential evidence, ie., a corpse, as in not touching it or moving it, was almost criminal. Using those present to conduct a search in the first place was a disaster.

The greatest fear most people acknowledge is the fear of speaking in front of a crowd. The Ramseys were literally hoisted up upon the world stage to speak in front of hundreds of millions of people/strangers and to answer accusatory questions screamed at them from a belligerent, cold and calculating media about their involvement in the horrific murder of their 6 year old daughter. They were given about 9 minutes to prepare for both.

They should have been given the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 11. The results are objective, thorough and designed to detect levels of deception and transparency. It tests for a wide spectrum of pathology.

For anyone with questions about the integrity of our judicial system and the Ramsey's reluctance to take a polygraph administered by the FBI and the BP, I can assure you they were smart to resist. Trust me, a Plaintiff in a civil case can be threatened with incarceration (and incarcerated) by a corrupt judge. Credible evidence on either side may be rejected without recourse depending on how vile the judge is. Remember Hattie Carroll?

 

[cynic]

None, repeat none of the major networks who covered the touch DNA development characterized the findings in any way like you're describing.

That’s because their source was the DA’s office.

I suppose that the unknown male DNA found in fresh blood means nothing to you, right?

Here’s what it means:
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation” (2002)
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact,
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/dec/23/miss-steps/

Skin cells.

Further, there seems to be some confusion between secondary transfer of skin cell DNA which I can fully understand, and touch DNA which by definition is not transferrable. They're two different animals, really.

From Bode's website:

In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.

Seriously, HOTYH, there are DNA labs other than Bode, and DNA experts that have spent considerable time studying and performing experiments relating to DNA, including transfer.

Transfer of DNA is seen with variable degrees of efficiency in each of the two types of transfer experiments conducted. In most cases the transferred DNA was a lower concentration than the DNA of the individual to whom it was transferred, however, this was not observed in all instances.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf

Secondary transfer isn't mentioned, as this type of contact would not deposit sufficient cells to produce a profile.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

there seems to be some confusion between secondary transfer of skin cell DNA which I can fully understand, and touch DNA which by definition is not transferrable.

Touch DNA which by definition is not transferrable ???????
There is no such definition.

Touch DNA attempts to find DNA from epithelial cells, which can be collected from a number of different types of surfaces using a few different techniques for collection depending on the surface.
For now, I’m just going to concentrate on touch DNA from clothing. If someone handles an article of clothing they will leave behind some skin cells during that time of contact.
If they just finished washing their hands prior to that contact, they will leave behind only their own skin cells.
If they shook hands with someone else prior to contacting that article of clothing, then skin cells from both people will be found.
The method used for collection of DNA from clothing is by razor scraping a target area of the clothing, and extracting the DNA from the resulting “fuzz.”
Touch DNA finds skin cells from a “touch,” it’s really no more mysterious than that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Touch DNA finds skin cells from a “touch,” it’s really no more mysterious than that.

Exactly.

Your chronic attempts to rationalize two separate and complete DNA profiles found on the waistband of a sexual assault victim that each matched one another is to say the least interesting.

That these two complete profiles got there by what, JBR's hands? Because we know that skin cell DNA analysis gets really tough after an item has passed thru the washer and dryer.

Using your best knowledge of innocent, secondary, and random DNA transfer, what scenario could you present that accounts for two separate profiles on the waistband, another profile mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, and yet another potential profile underneath JBR's fingernails (as that could be a match also) that all match one another?

 

[madeleine]

Wait a second,wait a second:waitasec:

So the touch DNA on the longjohns is skin cells,correct?
But not the one from the panties,I don't remember them saying so.

If we have two types of DNA (skin cells AND saliva or whatever it was) coming from the same person then I guess this means it can't be secondary transfer.:waitasec:
I mean,you can't have TWO types of DNA if you're talking about transfer,right?It should be the same type.
You can't pick up skin cells from a person,touch an item and leave his saliva there.Sorry dunno how to explain better.

 

[madeleine]

Touch DNA didn't exist back then when they discovered the DNA in her panties,or?So this means that sample is NOT skin cells.This tells me the DNA owner WAS there,they have TWO types of DNA on her body,skin cells AND something else (saliva,sweat,whatever it is).I guess this rules out innocent transfer.Still doesn't prove that it's the killer's ,the owner could have been an accomplice.But guess it rules out the manufactury worker,etc as far as I am concerned.

 

[ami]

what DeeDee said regarding Meyer is true, and consequently, that evidence could never be presented in court.

I'm not as interested in what would or wouldn't stand up in court - we talk about writing samples and polygraphs too, and those might not stand up either - but what stands up in my mind.

If nonsterile clippers were used and the DNA still matched the stuff found on her underwear, then it wasn't contamination from the clippers themselves. Someone would have to have innocently transferred skin cells through touch or saliva onto both underwear and fingernails, or onto her fingernails which she then used to touch her own underwear, etc.

I'm a scientist, I amplify DNA and I know how easy it is for something to get contaminated. There are cells in the air, even free DNA from cells that have lysed or broken can be found. And though I don't do forensics, I'm assuming there is some rule that governs what/how much is considered a potential airborne contaminant (even if you are wearing gloves, stuff still blows or settles onto things) versus what is considered evidence left by someone else. If matching DNA is found in two or more places, then I'd start to think it's not random.

 

[Roy23]

Wait a second,wait a second:waitasec:

So the touch DNA on the longjohns is skin cells,correct?
But not the one from the panties,I don't remember them saying so.

If we have two types of DNA (skin cells AND saliva or whatever it was) coming from the same person then I guess this means it can't be secondary transfer.:waitasec:
I mean,you can't have TWO types of DNA if you're talking about transfer,right?It should be the same type.
You can't pick up skin cells from a person,touch an item and leave his saliva there.Sorry dunno how to explain better.

Yes Yes Yes.

The BPD found the original DNA in two or three different bloodspots on the panties. It was very small and it sounded like they had trouble identifying a complete profile from at least one of them. The DNA was not blood or seminal fluid and almost all of the experts conclude it was saliva. They developed a full profile similarly from the way they would get it from a cigarette butt.

The BPD had created scenarios of the crime when investigating. Of course some of the scenarios were staging and some sexual assault. They had an idea of how it happened. The isolated the area they thought might have skin cells based on the scenario and hit paydirt.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That’s because their source was the DA’s office.

Ad hominem.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”

Oooh a full profile.

Now, how about TWO full profiles from each side of the waistband that match a THIRD profile mixed with blood. Who are you trying to kid with this C$#%?

Or are you saying that Bode raised weak DNA up the flagpole, incorrectly matched it to other weak DNA, ignored JBR's DNA profile also present at the two locations, and allowed the DA's office to erroneously exhonerate?

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not sure it helps your argument to take my post out of context and spin its meaning with a truly convoluted argument.

I'll ignore that.

Boulder County officials published the exhoneration letter in response to new evidence. Were it not for the new evidence, there could be no exhoneration letter.

I disagree. ML had dedicated herself to justifying the intruder theory. She would have found some way. This is no different than a President issuing a pardon when he leaves office.

This has nothing to do with money, and that was my point. You might have an argument if the exhoneration letter simply rehashed archaic stuff.

It grew out of archaic stuff: ML's commitment to foolish 1960's principles.

Boulder County officials don't 'take over cases at the behest of private attorneys.'

Oh, NO?! Let's have a look, shall we? In August of 2002, LW announced he was considering filing a lawsuit against the BPD. Around Oct., he said he would unless the case was taken over by someone else. He mentioned the DA by name. LW is a dirty snake, but he's not stupid. He KNEW the DA was sympathetic to his clients; it's not like it was a big secret!

I actually talk about this at some length in chapter seven:

How did an utter moron like Mary Lacy ever get into the kind of position she's in? Well, in 2002, Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT?! I've never even heard of such a thing: a suspect's lawyer deciding who can and cannot investigate a homicide case? I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it damn well ought to be a disbarring offense. As far as I know, it may be legal, but it can't be ethical.

It seems you're forgetting that ML developed a JBR case factoid. Don't be jealous. Where's your new factoid?

ME jealous of HER?! Are you kidding me?

 

[BBB167893]

Disagree Dave.

Not surprising.

And how you doin?

Still doing my thing. On the plus side, my batting average is looking good!

They have already proven that when they find the donor, they will have found a guilty person. Maybe not the mastermind but the killer.

That sounds like a very dangerous assumption to me.

 

[BBB167893]

jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA-Evidence

Try again, Roy. That was NOT a police report. It came from LW, the Rs' mouthpiece and Augustin and Gray, two private dets. hired by the Rs. In fact, the lead investgator, Tom Bennett, publically contradicted those claims.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That sounds like a very dangerous assumption to me.

Oh, the only truly dangerous assumption is made by RDI when they assume that the offender is off the street.

IDI makes no such assumption.

Whether your RDI or IDI, RDI makes the only really dangerous assumption.

 

[Roy23]

"That sounds like a very dangerous assumption to me. "

I would agree with you if it wasn't year 2010. I now realize this case is not like a Star Trek convention anymore.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't agree. We don't know what all the police knew/knows. We also know the DA's office did not seem amendable to indicting the Ramseys, which is a different issue than the police not having a case. Other DA offices have indicted on far less case data.

You beat me to it!

 

[Roy23]

You beat me to it!

Lets all ignore the Grand Jury and professional defense witnesses and blame it on the DA.

 

[BBB167893]

A Grand Jury didn't indict. It really doesn't have to do with the DA's office. The DA was advised by a whole lot of professionals to leave this case alone for the time being.

Can't be both, Roy. Either they didn't indict or the DA quashed it.

I agree with you on the police. They made statements concerning fibers in interviews with the Ramsey's.

The Rs didn't help themselves with their responses.

Lin Wood said his clients could comment on it when he got to see the reports on just what this evidence was.

Typical legal tactic.

 

[Roy23]

Can't be both, Roy. Either they didn't indict or the DA quashed it.



The Rs didn't help themselves with their responses.



Typical legal tactic.

I don't believe they were telling the whole truth Dave. All they had to do was prove they had evidence of those fibers. It was a fair request. Remember this is also a group that had DNA sitting around and did nothing with it.

 

[BBB167893]

The only people that have ever claimed there was any significance to the fingernail DNA were those on the Ramsey payroll.

:clap:

Lin Wood, well; I’ll be nice and just say that he was one of the primary Ramsey attorneys.

Forget being nice! He wants trouble, let's oblige him! I just LOOOOVE obliging!