Well thanks. One paper you cited showed secondary transfer DNA was detectable only 1/4 times as they described. And the scenarios you outline
"Other possibilities include:
· Primary transfer from an innocent male donor. An example would be kids playing doctor as suggested earlier by SD.
· Secondary transfer via hand contact by one or more of the following: JBR, PR, JR.
· Secondary transfer through use of a contaminated item such as a wash cloth or towel.
· Contamination and / or cross-contamination by someone involved in the collection, testing or storage of the long johns and panties."
We could directly test.
But this handwriting evidence leaves me speechless. It's like Madeleine and Dave has a force choke on me. The e looks the same. The handwriting evidence is one evidence that makes me wonder RDI.
Tell me something cynic, even if there is an innocent explanation for DNA, IDI could still be true, since the perp might have worn gloves and the DNA could be contamination. An analogy could be made to fingerprints, that unknown fingerprints could be unrelated to the crime, but the crime could still be done by an intruder (say Samuel Sheppard case)
The DNA Revisited thread has more.
With regard to the ransom note, I thought that the authors use of exclamation marks and indentation levels was something that pointed strongly to PR.
I would agree that the perp might have worn gloves and the DNA could be contamination. I don't believe it but it is possible.
Well that brings things down to the motive of the intruder.Do you think it is possible for an intruder to consciously imitate PR's handwriting i.e forgery?
Why bother trying to implicate or frame PR in that ransom note?
How much time would it take to learn PRs handwriting well enough?
Where would the intruder obtain enough samples of PRs handwriting?