Prior Vaginal Trauma

[MurriFlower]

yes,an unknown male handled jb's long johns,I just doubt it's the same person that killed jb.Why would the unknown intruder take his gloves off only to handle the long-johns? I don't get that.If he was so careless why is his touch DNA not on the RN and various other places?

I think you have to actually test for touch DNA and as far as I am aware, the only place that was tested was the sides of the longjohns that they KNOW were pulled up, because they had to have been off her for the sexual assault to have occurred. They would not test every possible item for touch DNA, or at least, not at present, perhaps when procedures improve.

 

[claudicici]

this just does not happen in ONE night:


Autopsy Findings. The autopsy report took no position on the issue of whether there was prior sexual abuse; however, all such claims are based on autopsy findings.

Normal Hymenal Opening Size 0.6 cm.
"Girls with no definitive signs of genital trauma exhibited a mean transhymenal diameter of 2.3 mm and in general showed an increase of approximately 1 mm per year of age. Girls with definitive signs of genital trauma exhibited a mean transhymenal diameter of 9.0 mm and no significant variance with age. Correcting for age differences, the transhymenal diameter was highly significant as a differentiating factor (F=1079, P<.001). When compared against the criterion standard, the transhymenal measurement is 99% specific and 79% sensitive as a screening tool." Genital Findings in Prepubertal Girls Evaluated for Sexual Abuse: A Different Perspective on Hymenal Measurements. Perry A. Pugno, MD, MPH. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:403-406. Full Text for those with access
These findings imply an "expected" hymenal opening size of 6 mm for someone JBR's age; her actual opening size, 1 cm, placed her in the mid-range of sizes observed in this study among six-year olds known to have been abused (see Fig. 3 of the study). 99% specific means that using this reference standard (1 mm per year of age), 99% of those with hymenal opening sizes above this standard were actually abused (i.e., the test is 99% accurate in identifying such individuals: only 1 percent are incorrectly labeled as abused). 79% sensitive means that 21% of victims of abuse were missed using this standard.

 

[claudicici]

" The Barbie nightie is there because of static cling not intentionally"
Cathie,yes as pointed out by JR,it was not supposed to be there.
Why would he make such a statement?

 

[claudicici]

"After JBR was found they knew they would be investigated and they are not naive or at least John isn't. They got lawyers. I do not hold that against them as in fact if innocent it makes the police work HARDER it makes them dig for evidence.
Police can't call you in for questioning and go on a fishing expedition, grilling you over and over again on the same points. Hoping you will "change your story""
Cathy,if they were not naive then why do you think they kept changing their story anyways?

 

[claudicici]

" If I make accusations and theories about the family and they are innocent, a IDI turns out to be true, then I attacked a family who has already lost a family member and victimized them further. To me and my own sense of right and wrong --- that would be wrong."
ITA with you on that one,I think about it all the time and I'm conflicted about it all the time but I would still have to get over their behavior,changing stories and flat out lies to be convinced of IDI.

 

[UKGuy]

This is false. The coroner made no such finding.

Do you dispute that an unknown male handled JBR's longjohns?

Holdontoyourhat,

unknown male

This you inventing stuff again, Just like your unknown or foreign DNA, except as we all now know, its degraded touch-dna, no semen at all.

The touch-dna on JonBenet has multiple sources of origin. One being an intruder, but there is, as yet, NO other e.g. zero corroborating evidence, no same touch-dna elsewhere on JonBenet!

That means the probability of it originating from an intruder is pretty close to zero.

.

 

[UKGuy]

" The Barbie nightie is there because of static cling not intentionally"
Cathie,yes as pointed out by JR,it was not supposed to be there.
Why would he make such a statement?

claudicici,

Its entirely possible that JonBenet was wearing the barbie nightgown prior to her death and was redressed in her white gap top to make the R's staright to bed story consistent.

Thats why the nightgown was not meant to be there. Its was also spattered with blood stains, so was JonBenet wearing when she was assaulted?


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,


This you inventing stuff again, Just like your unknown or foreign DNA, except as we all now know, its degraded touch-dna, no semen at all.

The touch-dna on JonBenet has multiple sources of origin. One being an intruder, but there is, as yet, NO other e.g. zero corroborating evidence, no same touch-dna elsewhere on JonBenet!

That means the probability of it originating from an intruder is pretty close to zero.

.

Zero corroborating evidence? I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this...

...but the touch-DNA on JBR's waistband is corroborated twice. Once on the opposite side of the longjohn waistband, and again matching genetic material mixed with JBR's blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

Guess you didn't read this in the news? Because if you reread your post you glossed right over it for some reason. Oh, wait I know the reason: In order to gloss right over evidence of an intruder. Yeah thats it. No wonder you don't see evidence of an intruder, you're choosing not to look.

Leaving out most of the detail of the touch DNA, even referring to it as if it were a single instance of DNA, is flat wrong and misleading. Its a massive mischaracterization of the evidence.

Check out all the foreign evidence in this murder:

The handwriting.
The DNA in three places.
The cord.
The tape.
The motive.
The ability to threaten beheading on a small child.
Sexual assault on a small child.
The statement 'representing a foreign faction'.
The pineapple.
The brutal violence.
The blunt instrument.



You can't prove any of these things are not foreign to the house or the family. And its not like these things are trivial items either. In fact, this is the bulk of the items we discuss. The bulk of the evidence can't be factually traced to the house or its occupants!

 

[UKGuy]

Zero corroborating evidence? I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this...

...but the touch-DNA on JBR's waistband is corroborated twice. Once on the opposite side of the longjohn waistband, and again matching genetic material mixed with JBR's blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

Guess you didn't read this in the news? Because if you reread your post you glossed right over it for some reason.

Oh, wait I know the reason. In order to gloss right over evidence of an intruder. Yeah thats it. No wonder you don't see evidence of an intruder, you're choosing not to look.

Holdontoyourhat,

Its not corroborating when its from the clothing and the area where an innocent person may touch JonBenet and transfer touch-dna e.g. at autopsy, or using the toilet.

Find the same touch-dna on the cord, or the duct-tape, or the paintbrush handle and I'll promote your IDI for you since the touch-dna is independent from the clothing!

By the way stop making silly stuff up, and trying to obsfucate the RDI theories, in an attempt to boost your incoherent IDI.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Zero corroborating evidence? I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this...

...but the touch-DNA on JBR's waistband is corroborated twice. Once on the opposite side of the longjohn waistband, and again matching genetic material mixed with JBR's blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

Guess you didn't read this in the news? Because if you reread your post you glossed right over it for some reason. Leaving out most of the detail of the touch DNA, even referring to it as if it were a single instance of DNA and this is flat wrong, misleading the public and fellow posters.

Oh, wait I know the reason. In order to gloss right over evidence of an intruder. Yeah thats it. No wonder you don't see evidence of an intruder, you're choosing not to look.

Check out all the foreign evidence in this murder:

The handwriting.
The DNA in three places.
The cord.
The tape.
The motive.
The ability to threaten beheading on a small child.
The statement 'representing a foreign faction'.
The pineapple.
The brutal violence.

You can't prove any of these things are not foreign to the house or the family. And its not like these things are trivial items either.

Holdontoyourhat,

Who said it was foreign? Is it IDI by any chance? Its all household artifact, there is no proof any of it is foreign to the house. Ever considered that the R's might tell lies?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Zero corroborating evidence? I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this...

...but the touch-DNA on JBR's waistband is corroborated twice. Once on the opposite side of the longjohn waistband, and again matching genetic material mixed with JBR's blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

Guess you didn't read this in the news? Because if you reread your post you glossed right over it for some reason. Oh, wait I know the reason: In order to gloss right over evidence of an intruder. Yeah thats it. No wonder you don't see evidence of an intruder, you're choosing not to look.

Leaving out most of the detail of the touch DNA, even referring to it as if it were a single instance of DNA, is flat wrong and misleading. Its a massive mischaracterization of the evidence.

Check out all the foreign evidence in this murder:

The handwriting.
The DNA in three places.
The cord.
The tape.
The motive.
The ability to threaten beheading on a small child.
Sexual assault on a small child.
The statement 'representing a foreign faction'.
The pineapple.
The brutal violence.
The blunt instrument.



You can't prove any of these things are not foreign to the house or the family. And its not like these things are trivial items either. In fact, this is the bulk of the items we discuss. The bulk of the evidence can't be factually traced to the house or its occupants!

Abilities and statements in an RN are not forensic evidence. We don't know for sure which blunt instrument (of the three possibilities- bat, flashlight, golf club right there in the basement). The pineapple was in Patsy's bowl with Patsy's prints (NO strange male DNA) AND the same pineapple (it was tested) was found in the fridge; the writing matches Patsy's (at least until there is a better match -so far, she is the only one that cannot be excluded). Actually, nothing there even remotely smacks of "foreign". The statement about beheading is just that- a statement. And anyone can make a statement, foreign or pretending to be.
The cord and tape has parental fibers on them, so no foreigner there.
I do not dispute that there is strange male DNA on her clothing. However that was skin cells, and not the same as body fluids, which are less likely to occur in secondary transfer. In addition, that touch DNA is found ONLY on her clothes, and not on her or anywhere else on the crime scene, making it more likely that it WAS transferred from someone else.
There need not be a motive, and usually in an unintended death (even one resulting from abuse or rage attack) there usually isn't one. The RN plea for ransom is a pretend motive- staged to provide a reason she was killed, and the mention of "denying her remains" indicates to me that the writer knew she was already dead. MUCH less likely to get ransom for a dead child, "proper" burial or not. Odd that even though she was dead, no attempt was made to contact the parents to ransom her body for "proper burial". If they could get out undetected, they could have taken her with them, and her parents wouldn't have known if she was alive or not.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Its not corroborating when its from the clothing and the area where an innocent person may touch JonBenet and transfer touch-dna e.g. at autopsy, or using the toilet.

Find the same touch-dna on the cord, or the duct-tape, or the paintbrush handle and I'll promote your IDI for you since the touch-dna is independent from the clothing!

By the way stop making silly stuff up, and trying to obsfucate the RDI theories, in an attempt to boost your incoherent IDI.


.

UKGuy,

DNA was found mixed with blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear. Criminal as this sounds, maybe its from an underwear factory worker, autopsy, or toilet right?

In comes the corroborating DNA on each side of the longjohn waistband, and out goes the random unrelated deposit ideas. Its matching DNA found on 2nd article of clothing JBR was wearing when she was murdered. Found where a criminal had to handle her clothing to perform a sexual assault.

You're trying to convince me or us that the fresh fingerprints on the doorknob and on the emptied safe of a burglarized house, that don't belong to an occupant, came from the milkman or came from the factory?

Keep posting there UKGuy you're doing a fine job at something.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

DNA was found mixed with blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear. Criminal as this sounds, maybe its from an underwear factory worker, autopsy, or toilet right?

In comes the corroborating DNA on each side of the longjohn waistband, and out goes the random unrelated deposit ideas. Its matching DNA found on 2nd article of clothing JBR was wearing when she was murdered. Found where a criminal had to handle her clothing to perform a sexual assault.

You're trying to convince me or us that the fresh fingerprints on the doorknob and on the emptied safe of a burglarized house, that don't belong to an occupant, came from the milkman or came from the factory?

Keep posting there UKGuy you're doing a fine job at something.

DNA was found mixed with blood on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

You mean degraded touch-dna of course, dont you? Maybe a few cells fell from the size-12's or longjohns when someone at the autopsy pulled them down, who knows. Why is there only touch-dna on the clothing?

Your IDI has no evidence, nothing that can stand up in court, I doubt if it would even be admissable. Your IDI is just all yaboo stuff to the RDI.

This case is a sexually motivated homicide. There is evidence of prior molestation, there is zero evidence of any intruder. Guess who that leaves as the prime suspect(s)?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You mean degraded touch-dna of course, dont you? Maybe a few cells fell from the size-12's or longjohns when someone at the autopsy pulled them down, who knows. Why is there only touch-dna on the clothing?

Your IDI has no evidence, nothing that can stand up in court, I doubt if it would even be admissable. Your IDI is just all yaboo stuff to the RDI.

This case is a sexually motivated homicide. There is evidence of prior molestation, there is zero evidence of any intruder. Guess who that leaves as the prime suspect(s)?

The bulk of the evidence can't be traced to the house, therefore most of the evidence is of IDI not RDI. Remember that in order for RDI, everything had to be on hand that night.

You mean degraded touch-dna of course, dont you? Maybe a few cells fell from the size-12's or longjohns when someone at the autopsy pulled them down, who knows. Why is there only touch-dna on the clothing?

my bold

This is false, its not degraded, and the maybe this or that DNA transfer scenario glosses over the fact that a criminal is already known to have handled the longjohns.

Its evident from your post that you're mischaracterizing the available evidence, dumbing it down, obfuscating the facts. Why? Why so intent on RDI? Why can't you say 'yeah the DNA supports IDI theory' because you KNOW it DOES. Excusing the DNA hurts your argument by lowering your credibility.

 

[DeeDee249]

We do know that a criminal handled the longjohns, but until we know WHO the criminal was, it may be the parents as well as anyone, with the criminal getting the DNA on his hands in a manner unrelated to the crime. So the criminal and the owner of the DNA may not be the same person.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We do know that a criminal handled the longjohns, but until we know WHO the criminal was, it may be the parents as well as anyone, with the criminal getting the DNA on his hands in a manner unrelated to the crime. So the criminal and the owner of the DNA may not be the same person.

What you're really saying: We do know that a criminal handled the longjohns but the fresh skin cells deposited at opposite ends of the waistband are probably not from the criminal.

Probably they are from the criminal. This is where RDI credibility suffers. Not from a lack of RDI evidence, but from challenging IDI evidence in an absurd unrealistic low-probability way.

 

[DeeDee249]

What you're really saying: We do know that a criminal handled the longjohns but the fresh skin cells deposited at opposite ends of the waistband are probably not from the criminal.

Probably they are from the criminal. This is where RDI credibility suffers. Not from a lack of RDI evidence, but from challenging IDI evidence in an absurd unrealistic low-probability way.

Don't you see that until we KNOW who it belongs to we can't say they are one and the same? They MIGHT have been left at the time of the crime, but as they do not appear anywhere else on the body or crime scene, the probability (NOT certainty) is that this DNA was not deposited by the DONOR himself but deposited by someone who came into contact with the donor's skin cells (either directly as in a handshake, or by touching something the donor also touched, like a doorknob). I don't feel this concept is either absurd or scientifically improbable. That's why it is referred to as "touch DNA".

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Don't you see that until we KNOW who it belongs to we can't say they are one and the same? They MIGHT have been left at the time of the crime, but as they do not appear anywhere else on the body or crime scene, the probability (NOT certainty) is that this DNA was not deposited by the DONOR himself but deposited by someone who came into contact with the donor's skin cells (either directly as in a handshake, or by touching something the donor also touched, like a doorknob). I don't feel this concept is either absurd or scientifically improbable. That's why it is referred to as "touch DNA".

Yet another falsehood. Matching DNA was found mixed with blood on the inside crotch area.

I don't feel this concept is either absurd or scientifically improbable. That's why it is referred to as "touch DNA".

I don't doubt it but Bode probably thinks its absurd as they don't consider secondary transfer of touch DNA as more likely than primary transfer. THAT's why they call it 'touch DNA'. Its presumed to be the DNA from a touch by the DNA owner. You'd learn a lot from their website.

 

[UKGuy]

Don't you see that until we KNOW who it belongs to we can't say they are one and the same? They MIGHT have been left at the time of the crime, but as they do not appear anywhere else on the body or crime scene, the probability (NOT certainty) is that this DNA was not deposited by the DONOR himself but deposited by someone who came into contact with the donor's skin cells (either directly as in a handshake, or by touching something the donor also touched, like a doorknob). I don't feel this concept is either absurd or scientifically improbable. That's why it is referred to as "touch DNA".

DeeDee249,

Holdontoyourhat is having a laugh. He knows full well his talk about DNA when its really touch-dna, and about foreign artifacts found at the crime scene is all obsfucation and carries no legal weight, would not be admissable in court, and as a theory is incoherent since it plays around with the evidence in a non-transparent manner.

Holdontoyourhat is really a flat-earth theorist, ignore the evidence and make up my own.


This case is a sexually motivated homicide and there is no intruder.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yet another falsehood. Matching DNA was found mixed with blood on the inside crotch area.

Like I said- ONLY on her clothing.