IDI: Whats your problem?

[ami]

Funny, isn't it? If the DNA found in both places belonged to JR, it would be the end of the investigation and that boy's behind would be in stir.

That's true.... this is why I wish that there were some way to make the evidence "blind" to names. The second you say "Patsy" I am more suspicious because I feel she's been evasive. That has nothing to do with hard evidence but just emotional feeling (which does have its place, it just can't be the ruling force.) If you were to say that DNA was found in panty crotch and longjohn waistband, and it matched, and it was male, and the DNA belonged to Person A - without knowing if Person A was McSanta or JR - then one could evaluate based on evidence without preconception.. Then of course you'd put the names to it, join the pre-evaluated evidence with gut feeling and personal histories of the suspects and see what panned out.

For instance when discussing the RN, people often point out PR's decades-old journalism degree to explain the indents, the editing mark and the layout. Wolfe was also a journalist, and far more recently and with far more writing experience than PR - does that matter? Or the border staying with the Barnhills also had "similarities" in his handwriting sample as tested by LE hired experts. Etc. If the evidence from these were blind, with no names attached, I wonder what it would point to. No one? More than one person?

It bothers me that handwriting samples and lie detectors (things that are to a large extent subject to interpretation and not black/white) were not somehow given with an external control.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is a newspaper article. Not evidence.
Heres an article that claims Obama is a drug addict and homosexual.
http://www.globemagazine.com/story/424

The first quote is from the DA herself and can be found on the government news release website.

Both stories have multiple sources anyway.


Now where do you suppose a tabloid fits in all of this? Elvis on Mars and all that. The tabloids are the ones that ran lipstick photos of JBR alongside the 'suspect of the day', of course that was before the touch DNA. Do you think that gave supermarket shoppers an idea of what happened?

 

[BOESP]

PREACH IT BROTHER.

Funny, isn't it? If the DNA found in both places belonged to JR, it would be the end of the investigation and that boy's behind would be in stir.

Actually, I find it odd there are no reports of either John or Patsy Ramsey's DNA being found on JonBenet.

 

[WHITEFANG]

That's true.... this is why I wish that there were some way to make the evidence "blind" to names. The second you say "Patsy" I am more suspicious because I feel she's been evasive. That has nothing to do with hard evidence but just emotional feeling (which does have its place, it just can't be the ruling force.) If you were to say that DNA was found in panty crotch and longjohn waistband, and it matched, and it was male, and the DNA belonged to Person A - without knowing if Person A was McSanta or JR - then one could evaluate based on evidence without preconception.. Then of course you'd put the names to it, join the pre-evaluated evidence with gut feeling and personal histories of the suspects and see what panned out.

For instance when discussing the RN, people often point out PR's decades-old journalism degree to explain the indents, the editing mark and the layout. Wolfe was also a journalist, and far more recently and with far more writing experience than PR - does that matter? Or the border staying with the Barnhills also had "similarities" in his handwriting sample as tested by LE hired experts. Etc. If the evidence from these were blind, with no names attached, I wonder what it would point to. No one? More than one person?

It bothers me that handwriting samples and lie detectors (things that are to a large extent subject to interpretation and not black/white) were not somehow given with an external control.[/QUOTE

I know what you mean. Again, you make an excellent point. Our, my I should say, capacity to run with an emotional response to "evidence" I prefer is great. That's why science uses double-blind control testing to prove theories and substantiate postulates. Even the suggestion that something is going to happen to a patient or someone in a study by a professional tends to produce an outcome consistent with the mere mention of it. That's where courts come in. That's why unbiased judges and jurors are critical.

I believe the DNA samples found on JB in different places that all came from the same unidentified male is extraordinarily convincing evidence of a perpetrator. It is true that DNA was found by another investigator in a previously unopened package of underwear. And that is good to know. It is very important data. However, to find DNA on separate items of clothing she was wearing at the time she was tortured and murdered, that match and belong to a male not related to the Ramseys is statistically significant as in 10 to the 500 power.

Every male in the country ought to give a sample of his DNA to assist in finding the gdmfcsmfsoabhapos who did this. I will. And when he's found, I just ask for 2 hours alone with him in exchange.

 

[DeeDee249]

PREACH IT BROTHER.

Funny, isn't it? If the DNA found in both places belonged to JR, it would be the end of the investigation and that boy's behind would be in stir.

Not necessarily. Actually, probably not. JR carried JB up from the basement in an upright position with his hands around her waist. I would expect his DNA to be on her. Patsy admitted putting the longjohns on her- why isn't her DNA there? Maybe it is, and it hasn't been stated.

The main reason why I say that I don't know how the DNA got there is because I don't know how it got there. Pretty simple. I have an IDEA how it got there, but I don't KNOW because I wasn't there when it was left.
I would say that WE don't know how it got there because I assume no one posting here was there when it was left, either.
However, it is entirely possible that someone here may have actually been there. So if you were, please give us a break and tell us what happened.
If not, well then you don't KNOW how it got there either.

 

[cynic]

almost all of the experts conclude it was saliva.

Not true.

I saw or read something from Henry Lee with him saying this DNA was most likely saliva

He has not suggested that at any time, to the best of my knowledge.

Barry Scheck: There was a mixture of JonBenet's DNA and DNA from another source. So we don't know whether that's saliva or what, whether that's skin cells, you know, there was -- it could be DNA from the original manufacturer of the underwear. I know Dr. Henry Lee went out and bought underwear of the same kind and took it out of the plastic wrapper and took a cutting and extracted DNA and got some profiles from it. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/21/sitroom.03.html

But others who worked on the case warned that DNA evidence alone will not be enough to
convict Karr.
``It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent,'' a forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, said Saturday, noting that investigators only have a partial profile to work with.
``There was different DNA and mixture DNA that was hard to develop a profile from,'' said Bob Grant, a former prosecutor from neighboring Adams County who was an adviser in the case.
JonBenet Murder Case Heats Up Boulder, Colo.
Saturday August 19, 2006 9:16 PM
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press Writer

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder. Her theory stems from the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA were found in JonBenet’s underpants — DNA that renowned forensic expert Henry Lee believes is the result of contamination and totally unrelated to the crime
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

Who are you trying to kid with this C$#%?

The last resort of one without an intelligent retort.

 

[cynic]

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.

You don't need "Touch DNA" analysis to obtain a profile from skin cells.

I agree completely that the only way to get a complete DNA profile for CODIS from skin cells is using touch DNA technology, which didn't exist at the time.

Totally untrue.

Do you really believe they could gather enough skin cells for a complete DNA profile from a small droplet of blood on JBR's underwear in 1997?

Yes I do, and by the way a complete profile is 13 markers, this sample yielded 9 1/2 – 10.

The confusion here is that somehow people have come to believe that “Touch DNA” is the exclusive means of retrieving epithelial/skin cells. That is untrue.
First of all the term “touch DNA” is essentially a marketing term more than anything else.
CSI units have been collecting skin cell based evidence for over a decade including the time frame during which the Ramsey case evidence was collected and tested.
What changed were some of the collection techniques to try and maximize the amount of cells collected, but both partial and full profiles from skin cell based evidence were obtained through “good old fashioned” swabbing, there is simply no question about that.
Perhaps the biggest change from then, to the “touch DNA” “era,” was that investigators began to target areas of clothing where there was no stain visible under conventional or alternative light, essentially guessing at where contact may have occurred. That was new as well as some of the collection techniques, (an example of which would be razor scraping.)


The most common places to find DNA are in blood, semen, hair, and saliva. Any time you find these substances at a scene, you’ll need to collect them for DNA. You can also find DNA in urine, skin cells, perspiration, teeth, bone, and internal organs, so you need to examine your scene carefully. For example, if a bullet goes clean through the suspect, the bullet itself can be tested for traces of DNA. DNA can also be left on a variety of objects that people have touched or worn. We’ve found DNA on everything from dirty laundry to eyeglasses, cigarettes, bottles, and drinking glasses, partial fingernails (both broken and clipped), masks, gloves, and bandanas. All of these items should be collected and tested. In addition, you should look for DNA in the same places where you would look for fingerprints: the steering wheel of a car, door knobs and handles, counters, and cabinets, etc. All of these surfaces can be swabbed and tested for the presence of DNA.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=275

Friday, August 17, 2001
The latest DNA technology can find evidence where investigators wouldn't have even considered looking in the early 1980s, when the killer was still plucking young women from the streets. It can find answers in sloughed skin cells or even a blot of saliva.
"You can swab just about anything and test it and see if you get positive results," said King County Sheriff Detective Tom Jensen, who has made it his quest for 17 years to find the killer. "You're just kind of limited with your imagination."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/35567_greenriver17.shtml

Epithelial cells of an unknown suspect were swabbed off the front side of a collar of a polo-neck pullover. The victim had been stabbed; the stains had not been visible on the collar.
http://wiki.benecke.com/index.php?title=2005_Mark_Benecke:_Collection_and_handling_of_forensic_DNA_samples

Portland police investigating a burglary at Gilman Electric wiped a moist cotton swab across a metal box that the burglar had moved.
The swab, with the invisible skin cells it contained, was sent to the Maine State Police crime laboratory for analysis. The DNA matched the profile of Norman Dickinson, a convicted felon whose record was in the database.
http://www.pressherald.com/archive/state-crime-lab-can-offer-police-timely-vital-aid_2007-12-08.html

Mr Findlay alluded to a breach of protocol during the laboratory testing. Mrs Weston agreed that a swab had been taken from the ridges of a partial fingerprint on the tape, to see if DNA could be detected. The print had been unsuitable for a fingerprint match to be made by experts in that field. The swab had produced the DNA which matched Tobin's profile.
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/scotsman-edinburgh-scotland-the/mi_7951/is_2007_April_25/forensic-scientist-admits-mistake-dna/ai_n34629372/?tag=untagged

Moyse, who served as a DNA expert in the case, swabbed the sword for skin cells and other particles during the murder investigation to establish genetic profiles for previous handlers. Analysts can use skin cells, blood splatter and other body fluids to establish a person’s DNA profile.
http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=3546

The Medical Examiners' Office dries blood samples now instead of freezing them. They keep better and are easier to store. Now, in addition to lifting fingerprints from the neck of a strangulation victim, they swab for skin cells.
http://karisable.com/greenriverdna.htm

Due to the overwhelming success of forensic DNA typing in routine criminal cases, more and more evidence samples are collected from crime scenes and submitted to the laboratory. Initially, only typical biological stains such as blood, semen, and saliva traces that could be clearly identified as potentially suitable for DNA typing were taken. The increased sensitivity of PCR-based typing methods using fluorescence-based detection methods of amplified STR fragments has increasingly changed this focus to include all types of contact stains from objects which might have been touched by hands, face or even the ear of a perpetrator, e.g. an earprint from a door where someone might have listened. Typically, the area of the presumed skin contact is swabbed using a sterile dry or moistened cotton swab, which is subsequently dried and sent to the laboratory.
http://marketing.appliedbiosystems.com/images/All_Newsletters/Forensic_Vol13/docs/53144_FN_Customer_Corner_c.pdf

Barry Scheck: There was a mixture of JonBenet's DNA and DNA from another source. So we don't know whether that's saliva or what, whether that's skin cells, you know, there was -- it could be DNA from the original manufacturer of the underwear. I know Dr. Henry Lee went out and bought underwear of the same kind and took it out of the plastic wrapper and took a cutting and extracted DNA and got some profiles from it. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/21/sitroom.03.html

But others who worked on the case warned that DNA evidence alone will not be enough to
convict Karr.
``It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent,'' a forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, said Saturday, noting that investigators only have a partial profile to work with.
``There was different DNA and mixture DNA that was hard to develop a profile from,'' said Bob Grant, a former prosecutor from neighboring Adams County who was an adviser in the case.
JonBenet Murder Case Heats Up Boulder, Colo.
Saturday August 19, 2006 9:16 PM
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press Writer

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder. Her theory stems from the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA were found in JonBenet’s underpants — DNA that renowned forensic expert Henry Lee believes is the result of contamination and totally unrelated to the crime
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.
In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.
If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.
And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid.

"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 which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can`t just jump to the conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/count...925946,00.html

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

The DNA could be an artifact. It isn‘t necessarily the killer‘s.
-Mary Lacy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20319079


If it was saliva, why would they think the profile is attributable to “human handling”
If it was saliva, why did Mary Lacy herself not believe it?
If it was saliva, why didn’t Henry Lee, Barry Scheck, Michael Kane, or Tom Bennett believe it?
If it was saliva, why was it not found on JBR’s body or from the vaginal swabs?
If it was saliva, there are presumptive tests that identify it. Either they didn’t do a presumptive test to screen for saliva, or they are being coy with the result, or the DNA profile came from skin cells.


Further regarding touch DNA, these are the comments of an experienced Crime Scene Investigator:

"Touch DNA?" My understanding is that this is no different than DNA taken from a swab of a door handle, the trigger of a handgun, the handle of a knife, and on and on. It is DNA analysis from skin cells, which has been a primary venue, to my knowledge, since 1996. At least that is the first forensic case I had in which a profile was gotten from skin cells from an object. If this is the case, there is nothing new and the article is sensationalizing the analysis. I noticed that the news article stated that the "touch DNA" produced the same profile as the previous DNA analysis of the panties. Hence, there is no new information corroborated by the news release. Why now, does the analysis exonerate any family member, and it didn't in 1996. Wouldn't one expect to find additional sources from skin cells consistent with those from the crotch on the underwear?

It is a common phenomenon that there are unidentified DNA profiles, particularly mixed profiles, in many DNA analyses. As an example, the steering wheel of an automobile often produces mixtures. I have seen mixtures from the underwear, often, of sexual assault victims. It is further not uncommon to not be able to identify some of the profiles. I currently have four "John Doe" sexual assault warrants active with full 16 value DNA profiles in CODIS. They have been there for about 5 years. I have yet to receive a hit on any of those profiles. These are all from the underwear of sexual assault victims. Thus, unidentified DNA on underwear is not uncommon. "Touch DNA" sounds like a new marketing scam by a DNA analysis enterprise!!

The third fallacy in the reasoning is that lack of DNA of a family member and an unidentified DNA profile does not exonerate any one person. DNA, standing alone, does not prove nor disprove involvement in a crime. It only can lead to a reasonable inference that a given persons DNA was not on a given object or was on a given object. It is the other information in a consilient relationship that leads to the probable cause of the involvement of a given person(s) in a crime.

As a final note. I know of four cases from my limited case work in which nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA did not match. How did this happen. In two cases there was a link between probable lab cross contamination. This was verified by a DNA lab analyst statement (a very mature and professional position, by the way by the analysts). The third case was a suspected intentional switch of samples by a disgruntled lab analyst. This case was never resolved by legal mitigation, but the lab analyst left for another position. The fourth case is in the unknown bin. Within the last five years I worked a case in which a substrate had been examined by a state forensic lab with the results that the object contained no DNA and no blood source. The same object, a piece of clothing, was sent to the FBI and the result from the FBI analysis was that there was not blood and no source for DNA. As a result of cold case funds, the item was dug out of storage and treated with fluorescein. A few small spots reacted. These spots were swabbed and sent in for DNA analysis. A full DNA profile was obtained from these swabs. Further, a CODIS match was obtained from these swabs. The CODIS match was from a totally unknown source to the original investigation. The point is that DNA is a very powerful investigative technique, but there are many issues with DNA. Primarily, as we are coming to find out, the primarily issues have to do with the origin of the DNA which at the very minimum requires additional corroboration of the probability of the source contributing as an actor in a given criminal event.

It can be inferred that the recent press release is an effort to manipulate the investigation towards a specific insinuated conclusion. I see it as the effort of a prosecutorial office to conspire to wipe egg from the messy faces of past feedings on uncorroborated information.

Respectfully,

Larry Barksdale
Adjunct Associate Professor of Practice of Forensic Science
http://forensic-training-network.com/hub/showthread.php?p=239

 

[cynic]

Shuure,

http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/ci_4241740

DNA is a critical component in the death of 6-year-old JonBenét at her home in Boulder a decade ago. Investigators analyzed two spots found in JonBenét's underwear, but DNA tests done in 1997 and 1999 only narrowed the genetic material believed to be in saliva in the blood spots to a male outside the Ramsey family.

As far as I can tell these are the musings of “Staff writer Howard Pankratz,” who has wisely chosen not to offer a source for this view, quite probably because there is none.

I feel comfortable in saying they have multiple sources of complete DNA samples. I don't think they could have gotten before 2008 if it was a minute skin cell. But Scheck know a lot more than I do.

I feel equally comfortable in saying that they don’t. ML was very vocal in here rush to clear the Ramseys. I believe she would have spelled out all of the reasons why, if she had the proof.

 

[cynic]

All that, plus the limited time frame in which JBR wore the 'fresh' lonjohns, limits the possible occurrence of secondary dna transfer.

I agree with DeeDee, the pineapple evidence among other things speak to the credibility of the statements given by the Ramseys.
Given that, we cannot be certain as to when and for long the articles of clothing in question were worn by JBR.

 

[cynic]

It doesn't really matter if the underwear DNA was saliva or other fluid, so long as it wasn't skin cell. There are many sources referring to it as fluid, none refer to it as skin cell.

Why didn’t ML believe it?

The idea that RDI is able to casually dismiss unknown male DNA inside JBR's crotch area, with matching DNA on opposite sides of the waistband of JBR's longjohns, is astonishing for me:

Live a little.
There are plenty of cases with amazing forensic results.
Janelle Patton comes to mind again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/time-and-tide-wash-blood-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516

 

[cynic]

Funny, isn't it? If the DNA found in both places belonged to JR, it would be the end of the investigation and that boy's behind would be in stir.

There is compelling and highly inculpatory fiber evidence that clearly points to the Ramseys.
The same defense against fiber applies to skin cell based DNA evidence, it ease of transfer opens it up to alternate explanations in court.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the case against the Ramseys was prosecutable; the problem was not lack of evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As far as I can tell these are the musings of “Staff writer Howard Pankratz,” who has wisely chosen not to offer a source for this view, quite probably because there is none.

You're the one who barks "its skin cell" when referring to the crotch DNA. Living in glass houses and all that, you stated as fact that its skin cell, so where is your source? Do you just make stuff up?

We believe it was fluid genetic material that was not skin cell, because two types of DNA would effectively rule out secondary transfer scenarios. The DA behaves as if the new DNA rules out R involvement.

Either way, I'm still waiting for a plausible scenario that places matching DNA in both a swab from a blood spot on JBR's underwear, and a scrapings from two separate locations on the leggings. I figure I'll be waiting a while for that one. ALL THREE producing valid profiles that match one another. Thats quite a feat even by your rather hyperdeveloped standard for secondary DNA transfer.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

[/font][/color]There is compelling and highly inculpatory fiber evidence that clearly points to the Ramseys.
The same defense against fiber applies to skin cell based DNA evidence, it ease of transfer opens it up to alternate explanations in court.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the case against the Ramseys was prosecutable; the problem was not lack of evidence.

Apples and oranges.

Plus, 'skin cell based DNA' is an understatement as you don't say where the DNA was found and you don't even know skin cell is the only cell type, and I know you don't know.

R fibers can be expected all over their own house and their own daughter, especially from clothing they wore that night. Absense of R fibers would be odd.

R fibers on their own daughter are not even remarkable.

Waistband and crotch DNA of an unknown male not living there is the compelling evidence.

Its worth noting that the GJ was delayed by unknown male DNA, not by parental fibers on their own daughter.

 

[cynic]

You're the one who barks "its skin cell" when referring to the crotch DNA. Living in glass houses and all that, you stated as fact that its skin cell, so where is your source? Do you just make stuff up?

You have no credible source, I have outlined my reasons and sources in the post on the previous page.

Either way, I'm still waiting for a plausible scenario that places matching DNA in both a swab from a blood spot on JBR's underwear, and a scrapings from two separate locations on the leggings. I figure I'll be waiting a while for that one. ALL THREE producing valid profiles that match one another. Thats quite a feat even by your rather hyperdeveloped standard for secondary DNA transfer.

I’m sure there is no scenario that would convince you, but I’ve shown repeatedly that it happens both in the lab and in real world CSI:
Example of secondary transfer to three locations; the case of Janelle Patton:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You have no credible source, I have outlined my reasons and sources in the post on the previous page.

I’m sure there is no scenario that would convince you, but I’ve shown repeatedly that it happens both in the lab and in real world CSI:
Example of secondary transfer to three locations; the case of Janelle Patton:
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.
[URL]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1[/URL]

JP and JBR are two completely different cases!

The unknown female DNA evidence doesn't necessarily have an innocent explanation. The confession could be a lie or to cover for someone else. Dismissing evidence seen as 'must' having an innocent explanation is their prerogative but is done at their own risk.

Or, for all you know JP had a busy day. She's an adult and I don't think you know beans about what she did between the time she got dressed and the time she was murdered.

Whereas we do know JBR was not innocently exposed to DNA from an unknown male after she put on the clothes...Huge difference, I'm surprised you didn't see that.

 

[cynic]

JP and JBR are two completely different cases!

I'm not surprised you would say that.

…don't think you know beans about what she did between the time she got dressed and the time she was murdered.

Similarly, nobody “knows beans” about what was going on with JBR in the hours prior to her death, with the exception of JR, PR and BR.

Whereas we do know JBR was not innocently exposed to DNA from an unknown male after she put on the clothes...Huge difference, I'm surprised you didn't see that.

According to you, however, the DNA in this case allows for at least the following “innocent,” non-intruder explanations which I went over in detail, in my previous posts.
· Human error.
· Contamination.
· Innocent transfer.
· Secondary and tertiary transfer.

 

[BBB167893]

So many RDI are so passionate about their beliefs as to defy reason!

I think you'll find that we feel the same way about the other side.

Every piece of evidence is turned and twisted to prove RDI. Why?

I honestly don't know what you mean by "turned and twisted."

Batter up!

 

[BBB167893]

I really wish someone outside of Mary Lacey would just come out and confirm just how far this case has changed since the last few years. There really are a lot of good sleuthers that have actually helped in certain cases. And if the Ramsey's for whatever reason was still under "the umbrella" I wish and believe they would say so.

I hate to say it, but we may be waiting a while.

Even with what Lacey has done, I feel comfortable in saying they have multiple sources of complete DNA samples. I don't think they could have gotten before 2008 if it was a minute skin cell. But Scheck know a lot more than I do.

Thank you, sir. Therein lies the rub: the DNA is not of higher quality, it's the testing methods and technology that have improved.

 

[BBB167893]

Would you cite chapter and verse where they lied like this? Passing, but barely, is odd. What "barely" means in this context is unclear. You can't be barely pregnant. What did their answers, as measured by their tests, tell the examiners about them for sure in layman's terms? Anything? Were their responses proof of their innocence or not? Some people can fool the test and the testers. Weird. If an individual is experiencing great emotional distress or psychological trauma, the test results are necessarily skewed. Interpretation must compensate for that.

Well, since I'm up to bat again, I'd like to have a go at all of that at once. I actually devote an entire chapter to the polygraph test. That might explain it best:

From a technical standpoint, the Ramsey polygraph had more problems. In her book And Justice For Some, Wendy Murphy points out that "a proper question should be short and shouldn't contain words that have loose meanings. For example, a good question would be 'did you kill JonBenet?' Not much wiggle room. Instead, the Ramseys were asked long, murky questions like 'Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?' Adding extra words and fuzzy terms like 'regarding' and 'for sure' gives the test subject's mind time and space to wander. Short direct questions force the subject to focus."
She also mentions a part of the polygraph that often is overlooked by those not in the know: the pre-test interview. It's not known today what the pre-test interview for the Ramseys was like, or if there even was one. During a pre-test interview, the examiner will, ideally, get the subject to focus. It's also a good opportunity for the examiner to show that he is aware of the facts of the case, which tells the subject, "don't try anything or I'll know." Lastly, it gets the subject's memory working. One gets the feeling this is what the Ramseys were afraid of when the FBI test was offered.

SNIP

And at the end of the day, it took Patsy three attempts to get a reading close enough where Gelb could say she passed. Anybody can pass a test if they take it enough times. Like Chris Rock says, "Passed it. Got a 65!" Any halfway intelligent suspect can beat it when they have three years-plus practice time.

Even if Patsy suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder (which responds best to a regimen of 80mgs of fluoxetine daily, and not to a benzodiazepine) that doesn't make her a deranged killer, necessarily.

True enough.

I know people with terrible tempers, mood swings, who've undergone hysterectomies, radical mastectomies, loss of loved ones, exhaustion, too little love with too many kids, on Christmas eve, who would not entertain death by turning a ligature on a child.

Leaving aside whether or not the person intended to kill her with the ligature at the time, I'm sure you are correct. Except, as I once said a few years ago, we're not talking about "people" in the abstract sense; we're talking about two very particular and particularly exceptional people. (That's as politely as I can put it.)

 

[BBB167893]

Once her lawyer intervened and she followed his legal advice, her previous offer was withdrawn. This does not make her a liar.

Claiming you were never asked does.

If my toosh was about to be fried, I'd hire my own polygraph team, too.

I wouldn't take one even if I KNEW I was innocent!

Unfortunately, neutrality, fairness, unbiased, non-prejudicial police and detective work is not assured, to say the least. That’s what’s scary. You have to be cautious and protect yourself from the protectors.

Quist custodius ipsos custodius? Not buying it, Fang. This wasn't Alabama in the 1960s, this was Boulder in the 1990s.