Quite so. My understanding is that DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape (and I mean rape in the strict sense), and even then only if there was a single rapist and the victim was not sexually active.
RIP Common Sense
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
Quite so. My understanding is that DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape (and I mean rape in the strict sense), and even then only if there was a single rapist and the victim was not sexually active.
I told you, didn't I?
I figured. Being from the UK, I thought you'd be more familiar with it than I am.
As I say, I don't know what to think about the case itself, and I say so in the actual chapter. My reasons for bringing it up (and I might just delete the passage entirely), is because, IF it turns out that the Portuguese police are right, and Kate McCann did accidentally give her daughter a fatal overdose and later covered it up so adamantly (including a visit to Pope Benedict XVI), then the idea that the Ramseys couldn't have done the same thing goes right out the window. That's just a detached observation.
Not only that, but their attacks on the Portuguese police seem to come right out of the Ramsey playbook.
What I meant by that was this: one of the few things I know about the McCann case is that it very quickly degenerated into an international urinating contest between the Portuguese and British authorities. But that's to be expected, I suppose. No country likes to see its citizens get locked up without a fight.
I have a feeling WHO that might be! And if his "commentary" is what I THINK it is, then I don't think he LEARNED very much from it! So I guess I'll have to "learn" him.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends! Anyone want to come along?
Not to get in cynic's business, but if memory serves, you are referring to John B. Eustace, who was in prison in North Carolina at the time he made his claim to have been in the area. And like John Karr, that turned out to be ALL it was: a CLAIM. Again, if memory serves, his story was already in doubt, and the testing of DNA was just a formality.
ST did some interviews in the wake of the Karr fiasco, and stayed consistent to both his book and his depo, saying that no one was ever able to create a nexus that would be necessary to place someone else in the house.
I could swear I tried to explain all this before!:crazy:
You don't know the HALF of it, vlpate. That's why I devoted a whole chapter to the man. I actually feel a little guilty about it since he's passed on now, but the alternative is unacceptable.
Yup. Reminds me of "MacBeth's" famous soliloquy about life: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Tell me about it! That's become my exact problem, and my tolerance for it has run out.
Oh, man! I am SALIVATING at that prospect! I would LOVE to get a shot at him!
That's the one. OOPs sorry I forgot you did explain that before lol heck and you were also right about the welcome! :innocent:
FairM, my friend, I may not be as likeable as I once was. Heck, I may not even be as good at this as I once was (and one may have to do with the other), but I ALWAYS try to be a man of my word.
But I get where you're coming from. It's one thing to hear ME say it. Sometimes, it's something else for another person to confirm it, you know? I wasn't trying to butt in; I'm just impatient.
I would still like to know how it was decided where to test the long johns. We know we have DNA from Patsy, who dressed JonBenet the night before (from her testimony), as well as after she was 'found' and brought upstairs, with Patsy practically covering her entire body with her own.
We also have DNA from John, who carried JonBenet up stairs from the basement and was lying next to her on the floor, crying.
There is also Linda Arndt's DNA to account for, as she moved JonBenet 'under the Christmas tree', which in and of its self is crazy. She is a LE agent and should have known better than to touch/move the body or allow the parents to touch her.
This tells me that any touch DNA on the long johs has to be a mixed sample. Either that, or they individually had to have tested ALL areas of the long johns to find an uncontaminated spot.
No one has been able to explain to me how I might be wrong in my thought process when it comes to this matter.
As for the DNA evidence in the panties, Cynic, you once again explained what we all need to be aware of in a way that is complete and easy to understand. I would much rather have links, articles, facts and testimony, than a statement that is not substantiated. Once again, thank you!
A_News_Junkie
Retired
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 5,651
- Reaction score
- 32
I guess my avatar tells you my answer!
The techs who tested for the DNA admitted "discarding some DNA". They never said whose or why. Obviously, JR (who carried JB up from the basement with his hands around her waist) and Det. Arndt (who moved her from the foyer (where JR had lain her) to the living room rug under the Christmas Tree. (like a horrific "present" from a nightmare). The DNA of THESE TWO PEOPLE had to have been present on those longjohns. It was never stated. While Patsy did throw herself on the body, it was already covered by an afghan and sweatshirt (in yet another awful breach of police protocol). But Patsy did admit putting the longjohns on her that night when they got home. If that is true, her DNA should also be there. If her DNA is, in fact, NOT there, then she is lying about putting the longjohns on JB that night.
What happens when your "common sense" turns out to be wrong, and an innocent person gets their life ruined? What restitution do YOU make then?
There are plenty of people who have been shown irrefutably to be innocent in old cases where DNA is retested. And those are just the tip of the iceberg - in most cases where an innocent person is convicted there is not going to be that sort of evidence to exonerate them. And usually, it was mostly "common sense" that convicted those people. They will never get justice against those who wronged them. The jury, the judge, the prosecutor...they never have to answer for the wrong they have done in such situations
That is why it is so important to use EVIDENCE to convict people, not your "feeling". As bad as killing a child is, putting someone in a cage for twenty years for a crime they didn't do is far, far, far worse.
And just like every other cotton pickin' thing in this case, we go round in circles, having no true definitive answers. Not only frustrating, due to the fact that a little girl has never seen justice, but because of the huge cover up that has occurred.
There comes a time, that you have to use common sense, to be objective. 12 people can sit on a jury and have 12 opinions on the guilt or innocence of the person being tried.
Each person on that jury has a responsibility to look at the evidence submitted during the trial. The opening statements, closing remarks and the grandstanding that happens is NOT the evidence.
When picked for a jury and when the trial starts, the jury is told that the case must be proven. That if there is REASONABLE doubt, they must acquit.
What constitutes reasonable doubt? This is where the 12 jurists may have 12 opinions and constitutes the true need for jury deliberation. Is it reasonable doubt if the accused accuses another person? No, that may, however be grounds to bring that other person up on charges also.
The Anthony jurists seemed remiss in their deliberations. They appeared to not use common sense in as much as hiding the fact that your daughter is missing for 30 days, partying and not letting LE know she is missing, must surely constitute child endangerment, child abandonment and a slew of other possible charges.
The outcome has already been determined, but I really feel that there was NO common sense shown by this panel of jurists. When you look at the EVIDENCE, it proved Casey guilty.
And I would like to see George and Cindy face the music for lying on the witness stand! Taped Cayleighs mouth with duct tape, because they used it when their pets died, yea right. How old is Casey? 4??
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,935
Fact: Casey knew Caylee had just died when she went to blockbuster and rented a movie and then laid up in bed with boyfriend all night and the next day
Fact: Casey knew Caylee was rotting in a swamp, or in the back of her car, or wherever, when she was dancing and partying and entered in a "hot body" contest.
Fact: Casey knew her daughter was being eaten by maggots while she happily bought sexy undies at Target with Checks she stole from her best friend.
Fact: Casey knew Cindy was never going to see her grandchild again when she lied to her over and over about Caylee being with Zannie, having a good time.
Fact: Casey NEVER reported Caylee missing.
Not even factoring in how Caylee got into the swamp, dead, Casey should have spent 20 years in jail just for the above. The jurors didn't need common sense, she admitted and there was irrefutable evidence of all of it.
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,935
Yeah, but read McCrary's take on the case. He's a very well respected profiler as well. I think they both profiled the case around the same time.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/14.html
I won't read John Douglas' book - I remember when he made his Ramsey report all those years ago and i was astounded - lost respect for him and I've never looked back.
indicat
Justice for Travis and his family
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,953
- Reaction score
- 2
I agree, I have no respect for him either. I had never read his opinion before this book, I really wish I hadn't bothered. Thank you for the link!
Hi SD,
That was especially true in the early days of DNA testing, but the situation has improved.
The most favorable scenario for confidently including a suspect would be with a monogamous or sexually inactive victim and a lone rapist.
In that circumstance, a vaginal swab taken in a timely fashion will generally yield a profile which is strong enough to be able to include a suspect, especially if differential extraction is used. I define that below and it is the primary reason why there is much more success in terms of being able to include a suspect with today’s DNA testing.
On the other end of the scale would be a scenario involving a very sexually active female and a gang rape, which essentially yields a DNA nightmare.
Now comes the long answer:
(All examples below assume that a condom was not used.)
In a rape scenario, there is often an overwhelming amount of female DNA (from vaginal epithelial cells) which results in an unreadable male profile.
This is especially true when seminal fluid is identified (through presumptive tests) on a victim's underwear with no sperm present.
In such a case, the autosomal (meaning from chromosomes other than the X and Y “sex” chromosomes) DNA profile from the non-sperm fraction generally produces what appears to be a female profile only, because the weak male profile is almost entirely masked by DNA from the victim.
Vaginal swabs from a rape kit, with sperm present, may still lead to a mixed profile in which many markers from the male profile will be masked as a result of the overwhelming amount of DNA from the victim’s vaginal epithelial cells.
This can be dealt by separating the sperm cells from the epithelial cells by a process called differential extraction. After the separation process and an analysis of just the sperm fraction, a good male profile can usually be achieved.
In this way a suspect can be included or excluded (assuming no other issues have compromised the profile, such as degradation etc. which would then possibly render an inconclusive result.)
In a gang rape scenario, or when dealing with a victim that may have had one or more recent partners, it’s necessary to try and distinguish between two or more male profiles, (after going through differential extraction to eliminate the female fraction.)
In order to do that, the sample may be analyzed by a process called Y-STR testing which looks at up to 17 markers on the Y chromosome.
Lineage markers from the “sex” chromosomes are passed down from generation to generation without changing, except for rare mutation events.
Y chromosome markers determine paternal lineage, mitochondrial markers determine maternal lineage
A Y-DNA profile cannot separate between direct male relatives.
Going to court armed with results from a Y-DNA profile is difficult and you certainly better have very good corroborating evidence from the rest of the case to support your findings. You can say that the Y-DNA profile from the crime scene matches the suspect but you must give a disclaimer.
An example of an actual statement in court with respect to a Y-STR profile is the following:
“The Y-STR profile of the crime sample matches the Y-STR profile of the suspect. Therefore we cannot exclude the suspect as being the donor of the crime sample. In addition, we cannot exclude all patrilineal related male relatives and an unknown number of unrelated males as being the donor of the crime sample.”
Forensic DNA typing: biology, technology, and genetics of STR markers, John Marshall Butler, page 214
With respect to the portion in the above statement that speaks of not being able to exclude an “unknown number of unrelated males as being the donor of the crime sample,” that refers to the fact that currently any given Y-STR profile may be shared by approximately as many as 1 in 2000 unrelated males.
More from McCrary:
Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.
For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey. "This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."
If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement."
The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.
Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.
"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible."
It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary. And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials. Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
george didnt tape the pets' mouths
This was posted before, but well worth watching.
McCrary interview:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5365
This is the interview where McCrary explains why he turned down the Ramseys. John Douglas should have turned them down as well, his actions were unforgivable.
McCrary: The first thing that is striking about the note is that it even exists. We have over 20-25,000 homicides a year in the United States. Very few involve a bogus ransom note or demand note so it's unusual that it even exists. And it's important to look at the note in a context in that sort of a context and then into the note itself so one the fact that it even exists is significant and then the content of the note itself. Very respectful - "Mr Ramsey"... "we respect your business"... and so forth ... very respectful and deferential to Mr Ramsey. Certainly the figure, the $118,000 is an oddball figure. Kidnapper ransoms are usually big fat round numbers - millions of dollars asked. And then the tone is one that lacks criminal sophistication although the writer is articulate, well spoken has good sentence structure, grammar, syntax, vocabulary all indicate a well educated offender. It's not even crazy, irrational or mentally disordered but it's staging and staging is the alteration of the crime scene. The purpose of the note is to mislead investigators, to make them think this is a kidnapper ransom when in fact it's been a homicide and the reason offenders stage crime scenes is because without it, they're the primary suspect so they have to come up with a false motive to try and mislead investigators and that really is what this note means.
Rose: A false note to mislead investigators?
McCrary: Yes
Rose: OK. Your involvement in this, the phone call, the message you received.
McCrary: Right. I really haven't had any direct involvement at all but I was called early in January by a private investigator working for an attorney for the Ramseys and they wanted to hire me to work with the Ramsey team to construct a profile, construct a crime analysis and so forth. I declined that offer, my secretary called back and declined the offer and I did that for two reasons. One, to construct a profile I'd have needed access to all the investigative materials, that is the crime scene photos, autopsy report, autopsy photos all the investigation that the police have done none of which would have been available to me working with the attorneys that wanted to hire me and second, my experience and what I know about child homicides. First of all we know there's a 12-1 probability that when we have a child murdered it is done by a family member, care-giver or someone close to the child. Only 1 in 12 is committed by a stranger. And then when we overlay the facts even as I knew them early on, that the murder occurred in the house, everything seem to have occurred in the house. The note was in the house, the note was written on a pad from the house. Everything was in the house. My instinct told me that the killer's going to be in the house or someone very, very close to the child so I didn't want to get in the position where I was in the camp of a killer and somehow inadvertently defending a child killer.
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 144
- Guests online
- 3,123
- Total visitors
- 3,267