Simple question...

[Holdontoyourhat]

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




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

Ad hominem.

Maybe change to whom the prosecuters were. Emphasis on the plural, since Hunter did not prosecute either.

Does RDI never run out of excuses?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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

According to what I've read, touch DNA in sufficient quantity for analysis would not survive a trip thru the washer and dryer.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think the point to understand, that most people are missing here, is that some of the DNA that was held by BPD for years and years was found by the FBI to be acceptable for CODIS.

Several years later, suspecting that an assailant would handle JBR's longjohns, ML submitted the longjohns to new testing. Sure enough, DNA that matched the CODIS profile on the blood spot in JBR's underwear was found in not one but two locations on the longjohns.

By finding additional and matching DNA, ML did more for this case than anyone else did in 10 years. Its the single biggest breakthru in the case, if not the only one: DNA from an unknown male is showing up in places that relate to the sexual assault.

RDI will challenge this to the end, while never asking: has anyone checked for any more DNA from this unknown male anywhere else at the scene? Instead they ask if DNA from PR is there, since she put on the longjohns.

 

[BBB167893]

Ad hominem.

But witty!

Maybe change to whom the prosecuters were.

Good point. I'm still not sure whether it was just them or the city in general.

Emphasis on the plural, since Hunter did not prosecute either.

That's HARDLY a ringing endorsement! In fact, you're only proving my point. Not that I need the help, mind you. That list is long enough as it is.

Does RDI never run out of excuses?

Excuses?! It's not like I'm just pulling this stuff out of my nether regions, HOTYH. Many people have said exactly what I'm saying about the "prosecutors," both of them, even before this case. I could quote any number of them, so don't blame me. You couldn't even answer my question:

why has no other prosecutor endorsed or even defended the conduct of the DA's office in this case? Where are the shouts of "atta boy!" from Rudy Giuliani? Vincent Bugliosi? Anyone you'd care to name? Why is it all from far-left, cops-are-pigs defense attorneys? It can't be THAT hard to answer.

 

[BBB167893]

Its the single biggest breakthru in the case, if not the only one: DNA from an unknown male is showing up in places that relate to the sexual assault.

Well, that's kind of the problem: it assumes there WAS a true sexual assault.

while never asking: has anyone checked for any more DNA from this unknown male anywhere else at the scene?

I have to admit, that's a good question!

Instead they ask if DNA from PR is there, since she put on the longjohns.

Wouldn't it be better to know that, just to cover all your bases?

 

[cynic]

ML did more for this case than anyone else did in 10 years.

She did something alright.

Its the single biggest breakthru in the case, if not the only one: DNA from an unknown male is showing up in places that relate to the sexual assault.

I guess the Janelle Patton discussion has clearly not had any impact. Too bad. It looked like there was a faint glimmer of hope there for a second.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

She did something alright.

I guess the Janelle Patton discussion has clearly not had any impact. Too bad. It looked like there was a faint glimmer of hope there for a second.

The original unknown male DNA from JBR's underwear was considered by some to be exhonerating on its own.

Now, we have MATCHING DNA on her longjohns.

Why don't you ask if ML checked anywhere else for this unknown male? Does she need to, or does she know IDI as it is (more DNA would be redundant)?

Janelle and JBR are apples and oranges, really.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi Hotyh.

I think the point to understand, that most people are missing here, is that some of the DNA that was held by BPD for years and years was found by the FBI to be acceptable for CODIS.

Several years later, suspecting that an assailant would handle JBR's longjohns, ML submitted the longjohns to new testing. Sure enough, DNA that matched the CODIS profile on the blood spot in JBR's underwear was found in not one but two locations on the longjohns.

Yes, Hotyh. Its inclusion does legitimize an IDI scenario.

By finding additional and matching DNA, ML did more for this case than anyone else did in 10 years. Its the single biggest breakthru in the case, if not the only one: DNA from an unknown male is showing up in places that relate to the sexual assault..

Yes, we covered that, that the patern is a determinant of sexual assault.

RDI will challenge this to the end, while never asking: has anyone checked for any more DNA from this unknown male anywhere else at the scene? Instead they ask if DNA from PR is there, since she put on the longjohns.

No, your recollection is in error.

We've graced over those issues within our group discussions of contamination, primary and secondary transfer, protocol.

iirc, That is one of the first questions postured, are we unaware of other
material that tested IDI?

For sure, we have to negotiate the unknowns, Hotyh.
But by now we all must recognize the bridges we each construct to arrive at our position.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hi Hotyh.



Yes, Hotyh. Its inclusion does legitimize an IDI scenario.

As if it were an illegitimate scenario before?

The original DNA was thought by many to exhonerate, and the new DNA simply to corroborate.

Despite your post, I still don't believe anyone in RDI's camp has asked:

Has anyone checked for any more DNA from THIS unknown male? Would the DA consider it redundant since we've got all we need?

 

[DeeDee249]

As if it were an illegitimate scenario before?

The original DNA was thought by many to exhonerate, and the new DNA simply to corroborate.

Despite your post, I still don't believe anyone in RDI's camp has asked:

Has anyone checked for any more DNA from THIS unknown male? Would the DA consider it redundant since we've got all we need?

I'd LOVE to see testing for more of this male DNA. I'd love to see the following tested: The tape and cord, the suitcase handle, the bowl of pineapple, spoon and glass. All the doorknobs in the house, the basement window frame and grate, the list could go on and on. But most of the things are gone- a fleeting chance, lost to time. Only the tape and cord remain HOPEFULLY.

 

[cynic]

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?

DNA from shed skin cells, or touch DNA is actually quite “durable.”
It can be degraded by a number of things, though. These include heat, humidity and bacteria.
If you made contact with clothing and then set that item aside, let’s say in a cool closet in a basement, that DNA could easily last for years.
In a hot, humid environment it could last from a few hours to a few days, depending on how quickly bacteria levels increase.
DNA can survive the washing machine, although that is more applicable to DNA from blood or semen. The problem with touch DNA is it simply doesn’t have the quantity of cells that DNA from bodily fluids can deposit.
This quote is from a DNA expert on the Nancy Grace show:
SWENTON: Well, yes, that was a good question. And I guess we don`t know. But if Cindy just washed them in a regular washing machine with detergent, it is possible that if there was DNA on the pants, that some of the material is still embedded in the fabric. There certainly have been reported cases where attempts have been made to wash an item and DNA was still recovered

In terms of water, if you simply spilled some water on the clothing that you made contact with, it would have no impact.
The real DNA “killer,” in terms of something that is readily available in most households, is bleach. It breaks apart the chemical bonds in DNA and will render testing impossible.

If there was touch DNA on the underwear material and she bled would it mix or would the DNA have to be mixed directly with the blood before touching any material?

Either possibility would account for what was obtained from JBR.

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?

It depends on how many skin cells are left behind. They have been able to determine that people shed skin cells at different levels. There are good and bad “shedders.” If enough skin cells are left behind, then it’s possible to get a complete profile. Often you will get only a partial profile.

Anything ya'll know, or any place you can direct me to read up on this will be appreciated. Thanks, Becky

Here’s a couple:

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html


http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPubsPDF.php?facID=5705&pubID=10

PM me if you need more info.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

DNA from shed skin cells, or touch DNA is actually quite “durable.”

Wha?

From Bode FAQ:

Would you suggest testing an item of clothing for touch DNA that has been laundered? It is highly unlikely that the shed skin cells will remain on an item of clothing that has been laundered.

http://www.bodetech.com/faq/frequently-asked-questions#j2

How can touch DNA be referred to as durable when a simple cleaning will remove it?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd LOVE to see testing for more of this male DNA. I'd love to see the following tested: The tape and cord, the suitcase handle, the bowl of pineapple, spoon and glass. All the doorknobs in the house, the basement window frame and grate, the list could go on and on. But most of the things are gone- a fleeting chance, lost to time. Only the tape and cord remain HOPEFULLY.

Why not the paintbrush? The other underwear in the package of underwear? The basement floor?

BTW is it true that JBR's original underwear is missing?

 

[cynic]

Wha?

From Bode FAQ:

Would you suggest testing an item of clothing for touch DNA that has been laundered? It is highly unlikely that the shed skin cells will remain on an item of clothing that has been laundered.

http://www.bodetech.com/faq/frequently-asked-questions#j2

How can touch DNA be referred to as durable when a simple cleaning will remove it?

Context:
DNA from shed skin cells, or touch DNA is actually quite “durable.”
It can be degraded by a number of things, though. These include heat, humidity and bacteria.
If you made contact with clothing and then set that item aside, let’s say in a cool closet in a basement, that DNA could easily last for years.
In a hot, humid environment it could last from a few hours to a few days, depending on how quickly bacteria levels increase.
DNA can survive the washing machine, although that is more applicable to DNA from blood or semen. The problem with touch DNA is it simply doesn’t have the quantity of cells that DNA from bodily fluids can deposit.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Context:
DNA from shed skin cells, or touch DNA is actually quite “durable.”
It can be degraded by a number of things, though. These include heat, humidity and bacteria.
If you made contact with clothing and then set that item aside, let’s say in a cool closet in a basement, that DNA could easily last for years.
In a hot, humid environment it could last from a few hours to a few days, depending on how quickly bacteria levels increase.
DNA can survive the washing machine, although that is more applicable to DNA from blood or semen. The problem with touch DNA is it simply doesn’t have the quantity of cells that DNA from bodily fluids can deposit.

Context didn't help.

Touch DNA isn't durable. It doesn't survive a wash, therefore the old RDI factory-worker DNA excuse is ruled out.

 

[cynic]

Context didn't help.

Touch DNA isn't durable. It doesn't survive a wash, therefore the old RDI factory-worker DNA excuse is ruled out.

Touch DNA is every bit as durable as DNA from any source, including blood, semen or urine. The point of the context was that the difference is quantity.
Laundry is not a gentle process.
If you were to place an article of clothing through the wash that was stained with blood or urine, as an example, enough cells might remain to obtain a profile because of the sheer quantity of cells present to begin with (>100,000).
The reason why an article of clothing with skin cells is not likely to produce a viable profile after being laundered has nothing to do with it being less durable. It is just that there are simply not enough cells to begin with (a few hundred to a few thousand).
The durability refers to its ability to resist chemical breakdown, and that ability is the same regardless of origin.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...an article of clothing with skin cells is not likely to produce a viable profile after being laundered ...

Thank you.

What this does is establishes that the unknown male DNA was introduced to both the longjohns AND the underpants after they were last laundered.

 

[cynic]

Thank you.

What this does is establishes that the unknown male DNA was introduced to both the longjohns AND the underpants after they were last laundered.

It's established according to you.
None of this precludes secondary transfer or tertiary transfer as an explanation for the DNA. We are also operating under the tenuous assumption that the Ramseys told us the truth.
Additionally, as I've mentioned previously, other factors must be considered when determining the relevance of DNA evidence in this or any case:
Was the crime scene was preserved.
Were the samples were properly stored.
Were appropriate precautions were taken to prevent contamination at all stages, from collection at the scene to final analysis at the lab.

 

[madeleine]

Thank you.

What this does is establishes that the unknown male DNA was introduced to both the longjohns AND the underpants after they were last laundered.

Dunno why M.Lacy comes to mind:angel:

 

[Ripley007]

Context didn't help.

Touch DNA isn't durable. It doesn't survive a wash, therefore the old RDI factory-worker DNA excuse is ruled out.

When we all buy a package of socks, or underwear, or something of the like, usually, somewhere on the package, it says you should wash/launder before wearing. How many of us follow these instructions 100 % of the time?.....