Simple question...

[Tadpole12]

I hate repeating myself, but ...
You, on the other hand, are not answering my question. (What is your explanation for the presence of two unidentified DNA profiles pointing away from the guilty party in the Janelle Patton homicide?)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1
There is a direct correlation between the Janelle Patton and JonBenet cases in terms of the relevance of DNA evidence. It underscores my point that there can be an innocent explanation for skin cell based DNA. (Despite what Mary Lacy would have you believe.)

Hi cynic.

If PR is to be believed, then the longjohn bottoms were freshly washed and the possibility of contamination by anyone other than the perp would not exist or be recognized?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Don't play games. This wasn't meant to suggest BOTH. It was an either-or. This is hypothetical and you know it. Don't confuse "accidental" with non-intentional. The head bash could have been the result of her being slammed into something in a rage. Still criminal, but not the same as intentionally smashing a heavy flashlight into her skull.
The strangulation may NOT have been intended to kill her. It could have been intended to make her LOOK like she had been strangled to death. Still criminal, different intentions.

And it's not "sugarcoating." It's telling real from phony, which is what these people a TRAINED to do.

There's something to be said for providing full context. You're awfully selective about what quotes from the profilers you use and which ones you dont.

There is a direct correlation between the Janelle Patton and JonBenet cases in terms of the relevance of DNA evidence.

RDI's rules:

DeeDee's rule: Either there was an accident with her head OR there was an accident with the garrote. Not both.

SD's rule: None of us know who killed JBR, who tied the garrote, who wrote the note, or who owns the cord, tape, or DNA, but RDI nevertheless knows what is phony and what is not phony about the crime (puhleeze).

SD's rule: If someone makes one statement that can be agreed with, then all statements of opinion or belief made by that person before or after that one statement also have to be accepted as fact.

Cynic's rule: If DNA is found at a crime scene, it isn't automatically related to the crime regardless of the circumstances of where or what type of DNA is found.

That is why you fail.

And I suppose the RDI investigation succeeds? U gotta be kiddn me bud. Not even the supermarket rags buy into that garbage anymore.

It is rules that explain why the IDI investigation fails also:

No foreign involvement.
No kidnapping was ever intended.
The ransom note is bogus.
The DNA will someday match.

 

[DeeDee249]

Our rules are more important than your rules. So glad you understand that. Of course, some IDI rules are important, too, like the ones you listed - no kidnapping intended, no SFF, bogus RN.
Now you're seeing the light.

 

[cynic]

Hi cynic.

If PR is to be believed, then the longjohn bottoms were freshly washed and the possibility of contamination by anyone other than the perp would not exist or be recognized?

Hey Tadpole,

I’m stating the obvious by saying that it is definitely only a possibility that PR is telling the truth.
It is also possible that the long johns were worn earlier and/or not freshly laundered.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this was one of those rare instances when PR wasn’t lying.
The Janelle Patton case indicates that unidentified DNA belonging to at least one female was present on her body, while no DNA from the man that killed her was found on her body, or at the crime scene.
At trial, there was a further revelation that there was matching DNA in several locations, locations that bear a striking resemblance to those in the JBR case.
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, Garling said.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...od-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516

The evidence strongly suggests that Janelle had contact with one or two females, leaving trace DNA on her hand(s). During the course of going to the washroom, or changing clothes, this “unidentified” female DNA transferred to her clothing.
I would suggest that the very same scenario could account for the DNA found on JBR’s clothing, regardless whether the items in question were freshly laundered, or fresh from the store.
JBR has contact with a male (most likely a child) earlier in the day. That “unidentified” DNA transfers from her hand(s) to the locations where it is later found. (This assumes that she was asleep prior to and after arriving home, and later awoke to go to the washroom, or for other reasons had contact with her clothing.)
Another possibility would be transfer from the hand(s) of PR.
Other possibilities also come into play, of course, if(?) we were fed a pack of lies by the Ramseys.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Our rules are more important than your rules. So glad you understand that. Of course, some IDI rules are important, too, like the ones you listed - no kidnapping intended, no SFF, bogus RN.
Now you're seeing the light.

Actually, I saw the light in 1997 before DNA. I don't need DNA evidence to know an intruder did it.

Not only has RDI's boat never had a sail: "oh, he was willing to testify PR wrote the note"

but its even taking on water: Male DNA that was found mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear was also discovered on other clothing she was wearing the night she was murdered, DNA that would wash out in the laundry. This breakthrough discovery would never have happened if it weren't for ML. Major news services report the R's are exhonerated because of the discovery. There are no RDI news reports.

RDI should ask themselves: Why did ST quit a position where he could've made a difference? Instead of solving the case and capturing RDI's so-called villianous parents, he chooses to write a book?

Is that the best RDI can do, quit the official investigative role and write a book?

 

[cynic]

Cynic's rule: If DNA is found at a crime scene, it isn't automatically related to the crime regardless of the circumstances of where or what type of DNA is found.

Since it's allegedly my rule?, allow me to correct it.
Cynic's rule: If DNA is found at a crime scene, it isn't automatically related to the crime.
That portion is an absolute fact.
What is not true, and I would never claim to be true, and have not at anytime claimed to be true, is the second half - "regardless of the circumstances of where or what type of DNA is found."
As a matter of fact the opposite is true.
This would be a factual rule:
Cynic's rule: If DNA is found at a crime scene, it isn't automatically related to the crime, its probative value is dependent on the circumstances of where and what type of DNA is found.
DNA obtained from a rape kit would be an example of extremely damaging evidence and one for which there would not likely be an innocent explanation.
It is also important to look at whether DNA evidence fits with other case evidence in a cohesive manner.
The Janelle Patton case clearly illustrates that if DNA is found that does not fit with other case evidence, there must be an innocent rather than sinister explanation.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/time-and-tide-wash-blood-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

Other factors which must be considered are the following:
Whether the crime scene was preserved.
Whether the chain of custody is intact.
Whether the samples were properly stored.
Whether appropriate precautions were taken to prevent contamination at all stages, from collection at the scene to final analysis at the lab.
Whether the samples were analyzed in a competent and unbiased manner.

 

[cynic]

Male DNA that was found mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear was also discovered on other clothing she was wearing the night she was murdered, DNA that would wash out in the laundry. This breakthrough discovery would never have happened if it weren't for ML. Major news services report the R's are exhonerated because of the discovery. There are no RDI news reports.

Consider these to be RDI news reports:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/time-and-tide-wash-blood-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Consider these to be RDI news reports:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/time-and-tide-wash-blood-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
and
[URL]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1[/URL]

How are these RDI news reports?

Just because you claim there's some relationship between these two criminal cases doesn't mean there is. It just means you're interested in this other case, thats all. That it does or doesn't relate to JBR's homicide is a matter of pure conjecture.

For all you know, there are a myriad of other DNA samples found at JBR's crime scene that have already been deemed unrelated or of no probative value. Since the DNA we have is found mixed with blood in her underwear, and we know JBR wasn't raped per se, then maybe you should go ahead and conclude there is not likely an innocent explanation for the same DNA on JBR's leggings that she was wearing at the time she was murdered. This DNA would wash out in the laundry if it weren't freshly deposited.

If ML concluded what the media faithfully reported, that there is not likely an innocent explanation, why can't you?

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey Tadpole,

I’m stating the obvious by saying that it is definitely only a possibility that PR is telling the truth.
It is also possible that the long johns were worn earlier and/or not freshly laundered.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this was one of those rare instances when PR wasn’t lying.
The Janelle Patton case indicates that unidentified DNA belonging to at least one female was present on her body, while no DNA from the man that killed her was found on her body, or at the crime scene.
At trial, there was a further revelation that there was matching DNA in several locations, locations that bear a striking resemblance to those in the JBR case.
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, Garling said.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...od-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516

The evidence strongly suggests that Janelle had contact with one or two females, leaving trace DNA on her hand(s). During the course of going to the washroom, or changing clothes, this “unidentified” female DNA transferred to her clothing.
I would suggest that the very same scenario could account for the DNA found on JBR’s clothing, regardless whether the items in question were freshly laundered, or fresh from the store.
JBR has contact with a male (most likely a child) earlier in the day. That “unidentified” DNA transfers from her hand(s) to the locations where it is later found. (This assumes that she was asleep prior to and after arriving home, and later awoke to go to the washroom, or for other reasons had contact with her clothing.)
Another possibility would be transfer from the hand(s) of PR.
Other possibilities also come into play, of course, if(?) we were fed a pack of lies by the Ramseys.

Hi cynic.

Ya, for sure the Patton case is a stellar illustration of the reality that dna may or may not be associated with a crime, or contemporaneous.

Within the article, I also found the mention of the sociological ramifications post crime on the island quite poignant.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Cynic's rule: If DNA is found at a crime scene, it isn't automatically related to the crime, its probative value is dependent on the circumstances of where and what type of DNA is found.

...and the DA is telling us that the circumstances of where and what type of DNA was found indicates a high probability it was part of the crime.

What part of your own rule don't you understand?

 

[BBB167893]

SD's rule: None of us know who killed JBR, who tied the garrote, who wrote the note, or who owns the cord, tape, or DNA, but RDI nevertheless knows what is phony and what is not phony about the crime (puhleeze).

"Puhleeze," my ***. Look again, HOTYH. I didn't say "RDI," YOU did. Don't kill the messenger.

SD's rule: If someone makes one statement that can be agreed with, then all statements of opinion or belief made by that person before or after that one statement also have to be accepted as fact.

It's nothing of the kind. I was simply reminding you that context is important.

Cynic's rule: If DNA is found at a crime scene, it isn't automatically related to the crime regardless of the circumstances of where or what type of DNA is found.

Unfortunately, HOTYH, that's not just cynic's rule. It's pretty much accepted that until a DNA match is made in any case, it's just another possible piece of the puzzle. In fact, as DNA testing methods get more and more sensitive, the more likely they are to detect DNA that is not related to the crime. And it's not us saying that; that's an almost-exact quote from an FBI criminologist on The O'Reilly Factor

And I suppose the RDI investigation succeeds? U gotta be kiddn me bud.

I didn't say that. Quit putting words in my mouth. I was simply reminding you of how I, to paraphrase Bruce Lee, found the cause of my own blindness.

No foreign involvement.
No kidnapping was ever intended.
The ransom note is bogus.

Now you're on to it!

The DNA will someday match.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[BOESP]

...and the DA is telling us that the circumstances of where and what type of DNA was found indicates a high probability it was part of the crime.

What part of your own rule don't you understand?

Is this not the same DA who spent untold dollars on John Mark Karr?

Touch DNA ... the key is the word "touch."

 

[BBB167893]

Not only has RDI's boat never had a sail: "oh, he was willing to testify PR wrote the note"

It's in PMPT, HOTYH.

RDI should ask themselves: Why did ST quit a position where he could've made a difference? Instead of solving the case and capturing RDI's so-called villianous parents, he chooses to write a book?

What do you mean, "ask ourselves?" We KNOW why. Because he was fed up with the political BS that doomed this case from Day One. That's my POINT: he could NOT have made a difference, and he finally realized that. Nothing he did was going to make a DENT with the DA's office, a bunch of politicians too caught up in their own garbage to give a damn about justice for a little girl. It wouldn't have mattered if Odin himself came down from Asgard and told them. And while I admit that I personally would have kept on fighting, even if I knew I couldn't win, I applaud him for one thing: for exposing the horrible cesspit the Boulder justice system is and how much stinking decay there is under the polished mask.

It's not like I haven't mentioned all of this a million times.

Now let me give you something to ponder over, HOTYH: why is it that not a single prosecutor in the entire country has ever defended or encouraged the Boulder DA's approach to handling this case? Not Rudy Giuliani, not Vincent Bugliosi, not Wendy Murphy, not any of them? Why are the DA's biggest defenders all defense attorneys? And the worst of the worst at that?

Tell me that.

Is that the best RDI can do, quit the official investigative role and write a book?

I've got a book we all should read in regard to this case: 1984 by George Orwell. Because the similarities between that government and the city of Boulder are disturbing.

 

[BBB167893]

Is this not the same DA who spent untold dollars on John Mark Karr?

Touch DNA ... the key is the word "touch."

My point exactly! I'm amazed he even had to ask the question!

If ML concluded what the media faithfully reported, that there is not likely an innocent explanation, why can't you?

How much time have you got?

 

[BOESP]

My point exactly! I'm amazed he even had to ask the question! ....

Well, Super, I think the key to understanding some of the postings are realizing that post hoc/ad hominem "reasoning" is what one uses when one runs out of logical reasoning.

I think "wear 'em down" is the goal. Nope ... ain't happening. :blowkiss:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Is this not the same DA who spent untold dollars on John Mark Karr?

Ad hominem. Your remark doesn't add or subtract from the existence of the DNA on multiple places on the clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered.

Thanks to ML we know it was in multiple places and not just one.

Now what does 'untold dollars' have to do with DNA in multiple places and not just one? Next you''ll claim ML planted the DNA?

 

[BOESP]

Ad hominem. Your remark doesn't add or subtract from the existence of the DNA on multiple places on JBR's clothes she was wearing at the time of the murder.

Thanks to ML we know it was in multiple places and not just one. What does this fact have to do with JMK?

Besides, isn't this nation that fought Saddam the same nation that helped arm Saddam in the first place?

Nope, sorry, it isn't ad hominem since I was not referring to DNA. I am referring to whether or not the opinion of the DA you mentioned is impeccable.

Like I said the other day, this has been addressed many times and repeating the reasons why the DNA argument isn't valid is a waste of time.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's in PMPT, HOTYH.



What do you mean, "ask ourselves?" We KNOW why. Because he was fed up with the political BS that doomed this case from Day One. That's my POINT: he could NOT have made a difference, and he finally realized that. Nothing he did was going to make a DENT with the DA's office, a bunch of politicians too caught up in their own garbage to give a damn about justice for a little girl. It wouldn't have mattered if Odin himself came down from Asgard and told them. And while I admit that I personally would have kept on fighting, even if I knew I couldn't win, I applaud him for one thing: for exposing the horrible cesspit the Boulder justice system is and how much stinking decay there is under the polished mask.

It's not like I haven't mentioned all of this a million times.

Now let me give you something to ponder over, HOTYH: why is it that not a single prosecutor in the entire country has ever defended or encouraged the Boulder DA's approach to handling this case? Not Rudy Giuliani, not Vincent Bugliosi, not Wendy Murphy, not any of them? Why are the DA's biggest defenders all defense attorneys? And the worst of the worst at that?

Tell me that.



I've got a book we all should read in regard to this case: 1984 by George Orwell. Because the similarities between that government and the city of Boulder are disturbing.

It seems you like to lump stuff up into one big ball:

I'm supposed to agree with ST, VanZandt, and CASKU's entire POV in order to agree with one point they made along the way.

I'm supposed to agree with RDI because the totality of evidence and opinion favoring RDI seems to some to outweigh the collection of evidence and opinion favoring IDI.

I'm supposed to believe that everything ML does is for naught. And the City of Boulder is completely like George Orwell.

I guess that keeps things tidy for you? Probably life is more complicated than a ball of string.

 

[BBB167893]

It seems you like to lump stuff up into one big ball:

I'm supposed to agree with ST, VanZandt, and CASKU'sentire POV in order to agree with one point they made along the way.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I just can't figure your approach, is all.

I'm supposed to agree with RDI because the totality of evidence and opinion favoring RDI seems to some to outweigh the collection of evidence and opinion favoring IDI.

A very astute argument, I must admit.

I'm supposed to believe that everything ML does is for naught.

I didn't say all that. For one thing, it would be more accurate to say why she DIDN'T do things. Moreover, I'm not the only person who has questioned her motives, far from it.

And the City of Boulder is completely like George Orwell.

I didn't say that, either. I said the similarities were disturbing.

I guess that keeps things tidy for you?

Maybe it would, if it were as you make it out.

Probably life is more complicated than a ball of string.

Often it is. I know that well. I just don't see what's complicated about your question.

Now, if you'd be so kind as to answer my question.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nope, sorry, it isn't ad hominem since I was not referring to DNA. I am referring to whether or not the opinion of the DA you mentioned is impeccable.

Like I said the other day, this has been addressed many times and repeating the reasons why the DNA argument isn't valid is a waste of time.

News to you is that you were involved in a discussion where DNA was already brought up. Then, in response to ML and DNA you brought up JMK. That is ad hominem.

Reread your posts once in a while, maybe?

Don't dislike the messenger (ML) because of the message (more DNA matching single sample DNA). She did a fine job discovering more DNA that matched DNA already found. The probability of doing that and having the DNA innocently placed changed somewhat when the discovery was made.

How much did the probability change? Thats food for thought for those of us who still think.