Simple question...

[BOESP]

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.

Nope, no news to me. The issue is the DA, who you brought up. I haven't mentioned one word about the DNA in these last few messages.

Here's to the point: Mary Lacy made a grave error in spending untold money to bring John Mark Karr back from Thailand then not have the evidence to indict him. Hope you can see that it has nothing to do with DNA or John Mark Karr, per se. It has to do with the grave error made by the DA. Those type errors don't instill confidence.

 

[cynic]

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?

No correlation you say???

Pointing to unidentified female DNA near cuts on Patton's shorts and underpants, and "jealousy, revenge or hatred" as the likely motive, Garling sensationally claimed the real killer was a woman.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/1017338?cfb3=3

Mr Garling also told the court that unidentified female DNA was found on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, as well as under the fingernails of her right hand.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/patton-killer-had-to-be-a-woman/2007/03/06/1173156490843.html

Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.

Nelson chef Glenn McNeill has entered no plea to the charge of killing the 29-year old waitress on Norfolk Island in 2002.

The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.

However, analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

To summarize, matching DNA was found in three locations on Janelle Patton.
DNA was found on her underwear, shorts, and under the fingernails of her right hand.

Mary Lacy’s Rule:
Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-09-2873717468_x.htm

Mary Lacy’s Rule applied to the Janelle Patton case:
Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of female DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown female handled these items.

What would Mary Lacy say to Glenn McNeill?
To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry.

Let’s take a look at what some people have said about Mary Lacy

A reckless exoneration
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News - Published July 16, 2008

I don't know if any member of the Ramsey family was involved in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey, which puts me in exactly the same position as almost everyone else in the world - a category which most emphatically includes Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy.

Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy. Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor. That at least is one explanation for the letter Lacy sent John Ramsey last week, absolving the Ramsey family of any involvement in the killing of his daughter, and apologizing for contributing "to the public perception that (anyone in the family) might have been involved."

The letter in effect declared the Ramseys innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, this is, to put it mildly, a bizarre conclusion.

Those circumstances include a great deal of evidence suggesting some sort of familial involvement in the crime.
…

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
…

Lacy should be required to answer a straightforward question. Why did she write this letter, given that it isn't part of her job description to be handing out public exonerations and apologies in open murder cases to people who any disinterested observer would conclude remain under reasonable suspicion?

Lacy leaves office in less than six months. Her reckless exoneration of the Ramseys has tied the hands of her successor, and made it even more unlikely that anyone will ever be brought to justice in this case.

To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: Is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado


And:


There's only one victim in the Ramsey case
By David Harsanyi - 07/10/2008 – Denverpost

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.

Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.

Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.

Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out — at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.

The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.

Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.

Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.

So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.

"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.

…

But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.

We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.

When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.

But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified — for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.

We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children — most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases — are in need of justice.

But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.


And:


Ramsey decision may scar Lacy’s legacy as district attorney
By Heath Urie - Boulder Daily Camera - July 12, 2008

Depending on whom you ask, term-limited Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy will leave the office later this year with the reputation of either a hard-nosed prosecutor, known particularly for her aggressive stance on sex crimes, or that of someone who bungled the most high-profile criminal case in Boulder history.

Thanks in large part to her handling of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case — and the extensive media coverage surrounding it — Lacy’s public image has changed dramatically since taking over the office from Alex Hunter in 2001.

Once widely considered a star among local prosecutors, pundits across the nation have helped mold a larger public perception of Lacy as a biased or incompetent elected official.

That image was again portrayed by many commentators last week, when Lacy issued a letter publicly exonerating and apologizing to John Ramsey and his family for the “umbrella of suspicion” they were held under for 12 years in the 1996 slaying, after newly discovered DNA evidence on JonBenet’s clothing pointed to an unknown male.

In a column published in response to the letter, Denver Post writer David Harsanyi penned that Lacy is “one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement.”

The Rocky Mountain News, in a staff editorial Friday, wrote that Lacy’s “dubious behavior once again serves the interest not of justice, but of Mary Lacy.”

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former tabloid reporter who covered the Ramsey story and is now an attorney in Washington, D.C., wrote in a column last week for Fox News that Lacy’s “arrogance and incompetence is beyond compare.”

“For Mary Lacy, none of this really is about JonBenet — it’s about her legacy and her ego,” Shapiro wrote.

Lacy has said she will not comment further about the case and, on Friday, declined to comment for this story.

Reached by phone Friday, Shapiro said he thinks Lacy has ruined her public and professional reputation through her collective actions in the Ramsey case, including the controversial 2006 decision to arrest and briefly hold John Mark Karr in connection with the unsolved slaying.

“The consensus, overwhelmingly, is that (the public and other attorneys) think she is incompetent,” Shapiro said. “Quite frankly, I think they are stunned and confused about the entire way she has handled the Ramsey case.”

 

[cynic]

...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?

Skin cell based DNA is fraught with many issues, and this has been discussed a great many times.

 

[cynic]

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.

That was their “trial of the century,” quite literally, as it was the first murder on the island in 150 years.
It is a fascinating case on many levels.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

ML's rule applied to Cynic's case: "Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of female DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown female handled these items."

So what? An unknown female handled the clothing the victim was wearing, and you don't know when or why. Maybe this female had business handling these clothing items.

We know JBR was changed into the underwear, right? We know she didn't wear the longjohns to the party, right? These matching unknown male DNA samples were taken from clothing JBR had just put on.

This male had no business handling these clothing items that night.

Besides, I read in your case that there was 'smoking gun' forensic evidence against the defendant. Her forensic evidence was found on his stuff, not vice-versa.

 

[cynic]

So what? An unknown female handled the clothing the victim was wearing, and you don't know when or why. Maybe this female had business handling these clothing items.

Really?
Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females, and unidentified female DNA near cuts on Patton's shorts and underpants as well as under the fingernails of her right hand.
She lived alone and was heterosexual, how did matching unidentified DNA get under her fingernails and on her panties (near where they were cut) and shorts?
The police took extensive DNA samples to try and find a match.
The most logical explanation is secondary or tertiary transfer, in other words Janelle transferred female DNA from her hand to her own clothing.

We know JBR was changed into the underwear, right? We know she didn't wear the longjohns to the party, right?

If the Ramseys were telling the truth, then yes.

This male had no business handling these clothing items that night.

That would be primary transfer.
There didn’t have to be a male handling those clothes for male DNA to be present.
Secondary and tertiary transfer has been proven to be able to deposit DNA and other trace evidence such as fiber.
(In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson Study.pdf)
We’ve been over this before, if JBR, or PR, for that matter, had contact with a male (adult or child) at the White’s party, for example, the DNA in the case could be explained through secondary or tertiary transfer.

Besides, I read in your case that there was 'smoking gun' forensic evidence against the defendant. Her forensic evidence was found on his stuff, not vice-versa.

You are not reading carefully. The evidence that put the defendant away consisted of two of his fingerprints on the plastic covering that Janelle was wrapped in, along with mitochondrial DNA evidence from a single hair found in the defendant’s car trunk. That along with his confession was the essence of the case.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You are not reading carefully. The evidence that put the defendant away consisted of two of his fingerprints on the plastic covering that Janelle was wrapped in, along with mitochondrial DNA evidence from a single hair found in the defendant’s car trunk. That along with his confession was the essence of the case.

Let me see.

A confession, plus her DNA evidence in his trunk. Seems to be pretty damning evidence. Seems like you'll need a OJ style defense for that one, IOW who planted the hair?

The fact that you bring up the victim's sexual preference, as if you know (lol), means you believe that knowledge is somehow helpful to make your point. In doing so, you've exposed a hole in your argument: you can't even begin to know when or why this DNA was deposited.

In the case of JBR, we know with certainty that the DNA was deposited that night. I'm not sure, but I think you're claiming that JBR deposited it herself after carrying it around from someone she ran into while wearing other clothing, right? This idea (it is only an idea) seems as far-fetched as the DNA belonging to both JR and PR. The fact is, DNA was most likely deposted that night (after JBR put the bedtime clothes on) by the owner of the DNA. Thats why they call it 'touch-DNA'. Its the type of DNA left behind by someone when they touch something. Otherwise they couldn't call it touch DNA. They would call it transferred skin cell DNA instead.

Likewise in Janelle's case, the DNA was deposited at some point while she was wearing these clothes. She was in public, while JBR wasn't.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi Hotyh.


In the case of JBR, we know with certainty that the DNA was deposited that night. - Hotyh

Isn't that more like the assumption which the application of the touch dna test dictates? The premiss on which the IDI assumption is based.

 

[cynic]

Let me see.

A confession, plus her DNA evidence in his trunk. Seems to be pretty damning evidence. Seems like you'll need a OJ style defense for that one, IOW who planted the hair?

I’m not arguing that Glenn McNeill is innocent. I am arguing that there can be an innocent explanation for DNA in incriminating places. That is a fact.

The fact that you bring up Janelle's sexual preference means you believe that knowledge is somehow helpful to make your point. In doing so, you've exposed a hole in your argument: you can't even begin to know when or why this DNA was deposited.

I brought it up because it’s difficult to find an innocent reason for someone’s hands in contact with Janelle’s panties through primary contact as you seem to have suggested.
I assume you don’t have same-sex unidentified DNA on your underwear through primary contact?

In the case of JBR, we know with certainty that the DNA was deposited that night.

Actually that’s not true. You have to assume a number of things, all of which are dependant on the truthfulness of JR and PR’s statements to LE.

I'm not sure, but I think you're claiming that JBR deposited it herself after carrying it around from someone she ran into while wearing other clothing, right? This idea (it is only an idea) seems as far-fetched as the DNA belonging to both JR and PR.

Secondary and tertiary transfer of trace evidence including DNA is a proven fact.

The fact is, DNA was most likely deposted that night (after JBR put the bedtime clothes on) by the owner of the DNA.

That is an argument for primary transfer which is possible
What is you are denying, is that it is not possible for secondary or tertiary transfer to account for that DNA.
To do so you are denying a proven means of DNA transfer and the most likely explanation for the DNA found on Janelle Patton.

Otherwise, JBR's own touch DNA would be comingled.

I’m certain it was.

Likewise in Janelle's case, the DNA was deposited at some point while she was wearing these clothes. She was in public, while JBR wasn't.

The Ramsey family was at a party, I would say that’s public.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The fact is, DNA was most likely deposted that night (after JBR put the bedtime clothes on) by the owner of the DNA.

What is you are denying, is that it is not possible for secondary or tertiary transfer to account for that DNA.

What is it about 'most likely' that you didn't understand?

The Ramsey family was at a party, I would say that’s public.

You're reaching because you need a transfer scenario and none of them are nearly as likely.

Its more likely skin cell DNA on each side of the longjohn waistband were deposited by its owner, less likely deposited separately by JBR having already picked up this DNA on both of her hands. Even less likely if she had foreign skin cell DNA on one hand and handled each side with the same hand. How remote is that?

Its the context by which they searched for the DNA, suspecting an assailant would've handled JBR's longjohns they checked the longjohns and sure enough what did they find?? DNA matching the blood-stain DNA they already had. What more do you need?

What transfer scenario did you have in mind, that innocently deposits DNA in blood stain in JBR's underwear and in two places on each side of the waistband of her longjohns (I gotta hear this!)?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I assume you don’t have same-sex unidentified DNA on your underwear through primary contact?

Probably explained best by Austin Powers: How did THAT get in there??

 

[cynic]

What is it about 'most likely' that you didn't understand?

You're reaching because you need a transfer scenario and none of them are nearly as likely.

I did miss that, and just to be clear, is it a fact that you are saying that it is possible (although not as likely) for the DNA found in the JBR case to have been deposited through means other than primary contact.

Its more likely skin cell DNA on each side of the longjohn waistband were deposited by its owner, less likely deposited separately by JBR having already picked up this DNA on both of her hands.

ML says it's impossible, though, “There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites." You obviously don't beleive that?

Even less likely if she had foreign skin cell DNA on one hand and handled each side with the same hand. How remote is that?

Who said anything about a single hand?

Its the context by which they searched for the DNA, suspecting an assailant would've handled JBR's longjohns they checked the longjohns and sure enough what did they find?? DNA matching the blood-stain DNA they already had. What more do you need?

Those locations are also areas that could be contacted innocently by JBR by going to the washroom, or by PR’s hands while handling JBR.

What transfer scenario did you have in mind, that innocently deposits DNA in blood stain in JBR's underwear and in two places on each side of the waistband of her longjohns (I gotta hear this!)?

The way it was transferred in the Janelle Patton case, with her own hands is one of several possibilities

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I did miss that, and just to be clear, is it a fact that you are saying that it is possible (although not as likely) for the DNA found in the JBR case to have been deposited through means other than primary contact.

ML says it's impossible, though, “There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites." You obviously don't beleive that?

From RMN:

* The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

I'm sold, how 'bout you? Are you going to vote on my poll?

I have no reason to doubt this. It is harder, more concrete than 'maybe she was abused' or 'maybe PR wrote the note' or 'he was ready to say she wrote the note in court' (how lame is that). Its one thing when a defense lawyer says there's no case because of the DNA. Its quite another thing when even the prosecutor says there's no case. The idea was to probably to finally squelch the lynch-mob mentality that has maimed the investigation since day one.

 

[Becky319]

I folded two loads of my 5 year old Granddaughter's clothes last Saturday. She had several pairs of tights (similar to long johns) and as I was holding either side of the waist band to fold them, also on her underwear I folded them in 1/2 and then 1/2 again and could very well have touched the crotch while doing so and thought about this touch DNA. How long does touch DNA last does anyone know? Until washed, until they get wet? If there was touch DNA on the underwear material and she bleed would it mix or would the DNA have to be mixed directly with the blood before touching any material? With regular DNA profiles they say it's 1 in billions of a chance to match someone else, what is the match % on this touch DNA since they can't build a complete profile? Anything ya'll know, or any place you can direct me to read up on this will be appreciated. Thanks, Becky

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Hotyh.


In the case of JBR, we know with certainty that the DNA was deposited that night. - Hotyh

Isn't that more like the assumption which the application of the touch dna test dictates? The premise on which the IDI assumption is based.

Tadpole, I couldn't have said it better myself! :woohoo:

 

[cynic]

I'm sold, how 'bout you?

I have at least two problems with that:
You left out the very next sentence which is quite clear:
“It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”
Additionally, she is very emphatic in her direct letter to John Ramsey.
“Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.” http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2008/0709/20080709_013026_JohnRamseyLetter.pdf

That is simply not true.

What she should have said would have been something along the lines of, “Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime can be powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder indicates that there is a possibility that an unknown male handled these items.”

(The exoneration of the Ramseys was, of course, ridiculous and reckless.)

Are you going to vote on my poll?

Sure.

It’s one thing when a defense lawyer says there's no case because of the DNA. It’s quite another thing when even the prosecutor says there's no case.

Normally I might agree with a statement like that, but it’s impossible to do so in this case.
The actions of the DA’s office were such that the lines between the two parties became blurred. The net result was that there was no longer a “prosecution.”

BTW, are you ready to part ways with ML and acknowledge the reality of an innocent explanation being entirely possible in the JBR case?

 

[DeeDee249]

The only DNA we KNOW was from that night was the wiped -down blood found on JB's thighs and pubic area and the urine on her clothes. There is no way to determine that the skin cells on the clothes were from that night, because she may have worn those longjohns before.
The fibers we KNOW are from that night are the fibers from JR's shirt in the panty crotch, since the panties were put on fresh from the package that night, and from Patsy's jacket worn that day found on the tape and garrote (since both these items were not there before that night). This should please IDI, because they insist the tape and cord were not from the house. If that is true (which I do not believe) then it is even MORE incriminating for fibers from the parents' clothing to be found on them.

 

[BBB167893]

I have no reason to doubt this.

Ah, ML: often wrong, but never in doubt!

'he was ready to say she wrote the note in court' (how lame is that).

I'm afraid you'll have to explain just WHAT is so lame about it.

Its one thing when a defense lawyer says there's no case because of the DNA. Its quite another thing when even the prosecutor says there's no case.

Given WHO the prosecutor was, there's little difference between them!

The idea was to probably to finally squelch the lynch-mob mentality that has maimed the investigation since day one.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what she was thinking. That's pretty much the problem. Make no mistake, HOTYH: PLENTY has maimed this case since Day One. I'd be more than happy to make a list.

 

[BBB167893]

Normally I might agree with a statement like that, but it’s impossible to do so in this case. The actions of the DA’s office were such that the lines between the two parties became blurred. The net result was that there was no longer a “prosecution.”

cynic, you've been looking at my notes again! (LOL!)

 

[BBB167893]

The only DNA we KNOW was from that night was the wiped -down blood found on JB's thighs and pubic area and the urine on her clothes. There is no way to determine that the skin cells on the clothes were from that night, because she may have worn those longjohns before.
The fibers we KNOW are from that night are the fibers from JR's shirt in the panty crotch, and from Patsy's jacket worn that day found on the tape and garrote (since both these items were not there before that night). This should please IDI, because they insist the tape and cord were not from the house. If that is true (which I do not believe) then it is even MORE incriminating for fibers from the parents' clothing to be found on them.

:clap: :clap: :clap: