IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

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.

Only if it were semen or--to a lesser extent--blood.

 

[BBB167893]

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the case against the Ramseys was prosecutable; the problem was not lack of evidence.

Nice to know I'm not alone.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

I'm swinging for Landsdowne Street today! You said it: it wasn't the fibers on JB's body. It was the fibers on items that they should not have been on, items YOU claim were not even in the house before that night.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm swinging for Landsdowne Street today! You said it: it wasn't the fibers on JB's body. It was the fibers on items that they should not have been on, items YOU claim were not even in the house before that night.

You're swinging on something, thats for sure.

Explain to me how its OK for JR to have his saliva DNA in JBR's crotch and his touch DNA all over her waistband, and how its not OK for JR for dark fibers that might not even be his, to be on her clothes.

This is the gist of your post, "Only if it were semen or--to a lesser extent--blood"
is it not?

 

[cynic]

You're swinging on something, thats for sure.

Explain to me how its OK for JR to have his saliva DNA in JBR's crotch and his touch DNA all over her waistband, and how its not OK for JR for dark fibers that might not even be his, to be on her clothes.

This is the gist of your post, "Only if it were semen or--to a lesser extent--blood"
is it not?

Where are you getting the saliva from? It's skin cells.

 

[DeeDee249]

If JR's semen were found anywhere on JB or her clothes, it would be case closed. There would be no innocent way for anyone's semen to get on a 6-year old girl and/or her clothes.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Where are you getting the saliva from? It's skin cells.

Denver Post reports 'probably saliva'. Nobody reports 'skin cells'. If its by your own reasoning that its skin cells I might buy it but I have to think about it.

 

[cynic]

Denver Post reports 'probably saliva'. Nobody reports 'skin cells'. If its by your own reasoning that its skin cells I might buy it but I have to think about it.

That article has NO source, which means you have no source.
I posted my sources in an extensive post (on page 6) which I can post all over again if need be.
It's skin cells.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That article has NO source, which means you have no source.
I posted my sources in an extensive post (on page 6) which I can post all over again if need be.
It's skin cells.

I'll be very happy with one line, a single link or source that says 'probably skin cells' or something like that. But, from a news outlet and has to actually be referring to THIS case.

 

[cynic]

I'll be very happy with one line, a single link or source that says 'probably skin cells' or something like that. But, from a news outlet and has to actually be referring to THIS case.

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

I was sincerely reading your posts and links, because I don't think it matters at this point to IDI's case if its saliva or skin cell. I read the names of the people you listed, and decided that Michael Kane or Tom Bennett were closest to the investigation and are probably more authoritative on the type of evidence BPD holds. I believe the underwear DNA was a factor for the GJ.

Certainly fluid DNA can pass by secondary transfer to a surface by a touch. IOW human handling that transported fluid DNA not skin cell:

"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."

Tom Bennett has the stuff right here:

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

He says its fluid and he's probably THE CLOSEST most authoritative source you've got!

 

[DeeDee249]

Outstanding, cynic.

 

[cynic]

I was sincerely reading your posts and links, because I don't think it matters at this point to IDI's case if its saliva or skin cell. I read the names of the people you listed, and decided that Michael Kane or Tom Bennett were closest to the investigation and are probably more authoritative on the type of evidence BPD holds. I believe the underwear DNA was a factor for the GJ.

Certainly fluid DNA can pass by secondary transfer to a surface by a touch. IOW human handling that transported fluid DNA not skin cell:

"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."

Tom Bennett has the stuff right here:

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

He says its fluid and he's probably THE CLOSEST most authoritative source you've got!

I see you have completely missed the point, where do they refer to saliva?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I see you have completely missed the point, where do they refer to saliva?

Thanks for the Tom Bennett link, this proves its fluid. If it were skin cell, he wouldn't say 'like from a cough or sneeze'.

 

[cynic]

Thanks for the Tom Bennett link, this proves its fluid. If it were skin cell, he wouldn't say 'like from a cough or sneeze'.

They are not saying it is saliva. The reason why is because saliva is a mixture, which includes high levels of amylase. That is easily screened for by presumptive tests. You are grasping at straws. Even ML doesn't buy it and I am surprised you would go up against her.

 

[BBB167893]

You're swinging on something, thats for sure.

Anything you can pitch, I can hit.

Explain to me how its OK for JR to have his saliva DNA in JBR's crotch and his touch DNA all over her waistband, and how its not OK for JR for dark fibers that might not even be his, to be on her clothes.

This is the gist of your post, "Only if it were semen or--to a lesser extent--blood"
is it not?

I never said anything about saliva, pilgrim. And my gist was that semen and blood are forms of DNA that can only be produced by certain means, which narrows the field considerably.

But since I love obliging, I'll play the game your way. Okay, I suppose the best way to explain the difference would be this: since he would have handled her at some point (and that's as far as I'm going for now!), his touch DNA would not be shocking. As for saliva, assuming it was, he could have sneezed or coughed as he was wiping her up after she'd used the commode. She was known to ask people to do that. But where the fibers come in, it gets more interesting. For one thing, you're certainly free to make the argument that they weren't his, although I'd hate to lay odds on just how many other people in the area had an Israeli-made shirt and were wearing it at the time. Secondly, the dark fibers were not "on her clothes," as you put it. Indeed, that would be one thing. They were in her underpants in a way that suggests that they scuffed off when he pulled his arm back after doing Odin-knows-what and his sleeve brushed against her waistband.

That ought to about cover it!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

They are not saying it is saliva. The reason why is because saliva is a mixture, which includes high levels of amylase. That is easily screened for by presumptive tests. You are grasping at straws. Even ML doesn't buy it and I am surprised you would go up against her.

Give it up, it aint skin cell DNA.

Tom Bennett was closer to the investigation than you, and he says 'like a cough or sneeze'. Denver Post reported 'probably saliva'. Nobody's reporting 'it was skin cell DNA' except you. It doesn't matter if it was cough, sneeze, saliva, whatever. What matters is that it was not skin cell, thus placing two seperate cell types at the crime scene. This rules out the 'liberation of skin cell DNA' rationalization


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Anything you can pitch, I can hit.



I never said anything about saliva, pilgrim. And my gist was that semen and blood are forms of DNA that can only be produced by certain means, which narrows the field considerably.

But since I love obliging, I'll play the game your way. Okay, I suppose the best way to explain the difference would be this: since he would have handled her at some point (and that's as far as I'm going for now!), his touch DNA would not be shocking. As for saliva, assuming it was, he could have sneezed or coughed as he was wiping her up after she'd used the commode. She was known to ask people to do that. But where the fibers come in, it gets more interesting. For one thing, you're certainly free to make the argument that they weren't his, although I'd hate to lay odds on just how many other people in the area had an Israeli-made shirt and were wearing it at the time. Secondly, the dark fibers were not "on her clothes," as you put it. Indeed, that would be one thing. They were in her underpants in a way that suggests that they scuffed off when he pulled his arm back after doing Odin-knows-what and his sleeve brushed against her waistband.

That ought to about cover it!

If JR were the owner of the DNA, the GJ would've indicted. Fibers just aren't as good as DNA, are they.

Besides, this is obviously just a rationalization for new information. Can you prove that this happened? This mystery man bathroom encounter? You ARE a novelist!

 

[BBB167893]

I was sincerely reading your posts and links, because I don't think it matters at this point to IDI's case if its saliva or skin cell.

That's what I like about you, HOTYH: you're secure enough in your own beliefs to hear anything the other side has to say. Sadly, I cannot say the same for a few of the IDIs who worked on this case. Just goes to show how much merit your "two teams" idea has.

I read the names of the people you listed, and decided that Michael Kane or Tom Bennett were closest to the investigation and are probably more authoritative on the type of evidence BPD holds.

I never thought I'd read those words from you!

I believe the underwear DNA was a factor for the GJ.

Maybe. Seems like there are a hundred different stories.

 

[BBB167893]

If JR were the owner of the DNA, the GJ would've indicted.

Maybe. Not saying they would have necessarily been right, though.

Fibers just aren't as good as DNA, are they.

Depends on the case.

Besides, this is obviously just a rationalization for new information. Can you prove that this happened? This mystery man bathroom encounter?You ARE a novelist!

No, I'm a baseball bat maniac! LOL

All levity aside, what are you talking about? I NEVER said ANYTHING about any "mystery man bathroom encounter!" I was referring to JR! I thought I was clear about that, especially since you brought him up!