IDI: Whats your problem?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Some of our 'DNA expert' posters state as fact that it was skin cell DNA in the underwear when its obvious there's no source for this information. Clearly RDI is finally doomed by non skin-cell DNA matching the skin cell DNA from the leggings.

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.

Its not likely that a complete DNA profile from transcient skin cells would be avaliable randomly in what were 'small droplets' of blood on her underwear anyway. And yet, very early in the investigation DNA profiles were obtained at these locations.

It very likely wasn't skin cell DNA recovered from the small blood stains on JBR's underwear.

 

[OKaraMia]

When children go potty...their undergarmets sometimes brush the toilet, the underside of the bowl, as well as the floor...

Transfer of DNA, even pubic hairs...could happen easily.

RDI

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

When children go potty...their undergarmets sometimes brush the toilet, the underside of the bowl, as well as the floor...

Transfer of DNA, even pubic hairs...could happen easily.

RDI

I'm afraid its more scientific than that. DNA from two different cell types were probably recovered from a blood spot and from her leggings waistband. Not only is this nonrandom (because of the two different cell types in three locations) but it is also consistent with a sexual assault.

 

[BOESP]

I'm afraid its more scientific than that. DNA from two different cell types were probably recovered from a blood spot and from her leggings waistband. Not only is this nonrandom (because of the two different cell types in three locations) but it is also consistent with a sexual assault.

It's also consistent with:

someone legitimately helping her use the commode and transferring random Touch DNA and/or skin cells (insert your opinion of choice) from their hands to JonBenet's clothing.

JonBenet transferring random DNA from her hands/fingernails to both garments.

mishandling the garments during the chain of evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's also consistent with:

someone legitimately helping her use the commode and transferring random Touch DNA and/or skin cells (insert your opinion of choice) from their hands to JonBenet's clothing.

JonBenet transferring random DNA from her hands/fingernails to both garments.

mishandling the garments during the chain of evidence.

How can I insert my opinion of choice when my opinions not listed? Its probably not skin cell DNA in the underwear because they knew of this DNA early on and had a complete profile from within a small drop of blood. Maybe more than one.

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? Factor in RDI's idea that the skin cells are random (not the result of direct contact) and it becomes really remote.

A complete DNA profile from two or more cell types (e.g. skin cell and saliva) and on more than one article of clothing JBR was wearing at the time (underwear blood stain, waistband) is simply too much for RDI to handle without introducing an intruder to their theory.

For this reason, RDI 'DNA expert' has been pushing the idea that the underwear DNA is skin cell DNA but without a source. Too bad there's no source.

Whereas the two different DNA cell types, saliva and skin cell, have sources.

http://cbs4denver.com/local/ramsey.jonbenet.dna.2.767137.html

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.


On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.


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.

 

[OKaraMia]

I'm afraid its more scientific than that. DNA from two different cell types were probably recovered from a blood spot and from her leggings waistband. Not only is this nonrandom (because of the two different cell types in three locations) but it is also consistent with a sexual assault.

Could you please share with me your source for the "blood spot" you mention here and the "saliva" that you mentioned in another post?

Im afraid, myself, that this is more scientific than PROBABLY.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.


http://cbs4denver.com/local/ramsey.j....2.767137.html

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

 

[Roy23]

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.


http://cbs4denver.com/local/ramsey.j....2.767137.html

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

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.

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.

 

[Tadpole12]

I'm afraid its more scientific than that. DNA from two different cell types were probably recovered from a blood spot and from her leggings waistband. Not only is this nonrandom (because of the two different cell types in three locations) but it is also consistent with a sexual assault.

Hi Hotyh.

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

 

[DeeDee249]

Hi Hotyh.

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

We really don't know if they were fresh. JB wore pajamas more than once before laundering, according to Patsy. They were kept behind her pillow. Patsy mentioned this in one of her depos, where she said she grabbed the longjohns because she couldn't find the bottoms to the pink pajamas JB wore the previous night (Christmas Eve). These pink pajamas are the ones she is wearing in the Christmas morning photos. The top to these pajamas can be seen on JB's bed. Patsy said she found the top, but decided to let JB sleep in her white Gap top. I believe Patsy is telling the truth about this. I used to do e same with my own daughter when she was little. If we were out and got home after her bedtime, she would simply sleep in the top she was wearing if it was a cotton knit or something soft like that.
Just because I believe Patsy is lying about most of the events of that night doesn't mean everything is a lie. Some things probably happened the way she said they did.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Denver Post has printed inaccuracies before.
A LE source for the discovery of saliva is the only one I'd put my faith in.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Denver Post has printed inaccuracies before.
A LE source for the discovery of saliva is the only one I'd put my faith in.

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.

Having two different cell types from the same unknown male effectively rules out every scenario except the criminal one.

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:

No free pass
“Right now we don’t have the DNA of a killer. We have DNA that is unidentified and we don’t know how it got on this child’s underwear,” criminal profiler Clint Van Zandt told TODAY’s Natalie Morales in a separate interview. Noting that the chief of police in Boulder has refused to clear any suspects despite the new evidence, Van Zandt added, “It’s too quick to give anybody a free pass on this.”
MSNBC’s senior legal analyst, Susan Filan, interviewed with Van Zandt, agreed with his assessment that many involved in the investigation remain unconvinced. “There are still some people very, very close to the case, both in law enforcement and in the prosecution’s office, who do not think this ‘touch DNA’ evidence is the ultimate exoneration,” she told Morales.


Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25619141/#ixzz0mjaqlqn4

​

​

 

[WHITEFANG]

You said it.



Maybe, but from where I'm sitting, there were moments when PR looked like she was having one HE** of a good time.



Never heard of it, but I agree!



That may well be, and no one is denying their right not to take one. What people have a problem with is them saying they'll take one, then lying and saying they were never asked, then claiming that they won't take one because LE is "out to get them," then barely passing a bought-and-paid-for farce and waving it around like it meant something.

Bottom line: in this country, people have a right to shut up. They DON'T have a right to lie.

Would you cite chapter and verse where they lied like this? Passing, but barely, is odd. What "barely" means in this context is unclear.

Given Jack Ruby's psychological state and the manner in which his test was performed, the polygraph results were ambiguous.

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.

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. Psychiatrists undergo years and years of advanced medical training and education to be qualified to diagnose and to treat DSM IV illnesses. What may appear to the untrained eye as mental illness, may not be. And, vice versa. To theorize about the nuances of such eclectic topics is a bit presumptuous (which I am all too good at, unfortunately.) 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.

 

[DeeDee249]

Would you cite chapter and verse where they lied like this? Passing, but barely, is odd. What "barely" means in this context is unclear.

Given Jack Ruby's psychological state and the manner in which his test was performed, the polygraph results were ambiguous.

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.

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. Psychiatrists undergo years and years of advanced medical training and education to be qualified to diagnose and to treat DSM IV illnesses. What may appear to the untrained eye as mental illness, may not be. And, vice versa. To theorize about the nuances of such eclectic topics is a bit presumptuous (which I am all too good at, unfortunately.) 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.

But of course you couldn't know if they would or wouldn't until it happened.
The Rs didn't "entertain" death. It happened- and they reacted. Maybe you would react differently, maybe most people would. But in THIS case the Rs reacted the way they did and only they know the reason.

It is well documented and can be seen by reading the interviews on ACR, that JR said he would be "insulted" to be asked to take a polygraph. And though Patsy said she'd "take 10 of 'em" (her words) the fact is that despite being asked by LE, the R defense lawyers refused to allow their clients to take a polygraph test until their clients hired their own polygraph tests. It took several tests until the Rs finally passed.

 

[DeeDee249]

I, for one, do NOT casually dismiss the male DNA found on JB. I want to know where it came from as much as anyone. BUT I do dismiss the conclusion that this DNA belongs to the killer. Until we KNOW who is belongs to, it can't be stated as fact that it belongs to the killer.

 

[BOESP]

How can I insert my opinion of choice when my opinions not listed? Its probably not skin cell DNA in the underwear because they knew of this DNA early on and had a complete profile from within a small drop of blood. Maybe more than one.

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? Factor in RDI's idea that the skin cells are random (not the result of direct contact) and it becomes really remote.

A complete DNA profile from two or more cell types (e.g. skin cell and saliva) and on more than one article of clothing JBR was wearing at the time (underwear blood stain, waistband) is simply too much for RDI to handle without introducing an intruder to their theory.

For this reason, RDI 'DNA expert' has been pushing the idea that the underwear DNA is skin cell DNA but without a source. Too bad there's no source.

Whereas the two different DNA cell types, saliva and skin cell, have sources.

http://cbs4denver.com/local/ramsey.jonbenet.dna.2.767137.html

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.


On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.


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.

The point of my previous post shows that your statement, "Not only is this nonrandom (because of the two different cell types in three locations) but it is also consistent with a sexual assault." is not necessarily an accurate statement. Other scenarios are possible too. You, apparently, missed the point.

 

[WHITEFANG]

But of course you couldn't know if they would or wouldn't until it happened.
The Rs didn't "entertain" death. It happened- and they reacted. Maybe you would react differently, maybe most people would. But in THIS case the Rs reacted the way they did and only they know the reason.

Exactly. And based on your logic, since those individuals didn't kill, they didn't entertain the thought of doing so. The premise with the "Ramsey's Did It" is that Patsy premeditatively construed a plan of deception to avoid an undesired outcome. She made a decision to take material and place it around JonBenet's neck and twist it and twist it some more until she died.

It is well documented and can be seen by reading the interviews on ACR, that JR said he would be "insulted" to be asked to take a polygraph.

If cops accused me what they accused him of doing, I'd be in on death row at the moment for multiple murders.

And though Patsy said she'd "take 10 of 'em" (her words) the fact is that despite being asked by LE, the R defense lawyers refused to allow their clients to take a polygraph test until their clients hired their own polygraph tests. It took several tests until the Rs finally passed.

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

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

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I, for one, do NOT casually dismiss the male DNA found on JB. I want to know where it came from as much as anyone. BUT I do dismiss the conclusion that this DNA belongs to the killer. Until we KNOW who is belongs to, it can't be stated as fact that it belongs to the killer.

There are several ways to refer to this evidence:

1. the male DNA found on JB
2. the DNA
3. the crotch and waistband DNA

Let me guess, I'll have a hard time finding RDI-biased quotes resembling no. 3, even though this is the most honest reference. The others casually dismiss, downplay, understate, or whatever you want to call it.

“Right now we don’t have the DNA of a killer. We have DNA that is unidentified and we don’t know how it got on this child’s underwear,” --Clint VanZandt​

Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25619141/#ixzz0mkFiPmnn

or, more accurately:

"Right now we might have the DNA of a killer. We have DNA that has been identified as belonging to a male not living there. We don't know how it became both mixed with blood in the inside crotch of this child's underwear, and deposited on both sides of the waistband of this child's longjohns."

...and then I would have to ask:

What do you mean you don't know? I suggest getting someone who can explain it to you? I mean, what is the most likely way for this to happen?

 

[WHITEFANG]

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.

 

[OKaraMia]

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.


http://cbs4denver.com/local/ramsey.j....2.767137.html


The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

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