DNA Revisited

[BBB167893]

Boulder had a well-established rep for all kinds of problems.

Not THIS kind. Perhaps "utopian" was too strong a word, so I withdraw that. But they still prided themselves on an extremely low, almosy non-existant murder rate. This shattered that image.

I realize that ST may not be well-liked by some. That's fine. But even if you don't agree with his theory, you have to admit he does one thing superbly well: he exposes the rotten underbelly of Boulder's political establishment, a set-up that would do Orwell proud.

So, I still don't understand what the beef is.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Not THIS kind. Perhaps "utopian" was too strong a word, so I withdraw that. But they still prided themselves on an extremely low, almosy non-existant murder rate. This shattered that image.

I realize that ST may not be well-liked by some. That's fine. But even if you don't agree with his theory, you have to admit he does one thing superbly well: he exposes the rotten underbelly of Boulder's political establishment, a set-up that would do Orwell proud.

So, I still don't understand what the beef is.

Not a thought about ST. Boulder was doing an exquisite job all on its own displaying who and what they really were.

 

[BBB167893]

Not a thought about ST. Boulder was doing an exquisite job all on its own displaying who and what they really were.

You have to put it in perspective, Fang. To the outside world, it probably seemed to be a pretty f'd-up place. But as the saying goes, Boulder is surrounded by reality. To those who lived there, it's the rest of the world that's f'd-up.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, I have to give you your due. Well done.

Thank you, but I sense that RDI feels no great urgency to explain this DNA, as if it were random. That almost makes sense (as an RDI-biased choice) if the DNA was found in just one spot. Now that the DNA is matching three (3) or more locations, random explanation is no longer valid, and a nonrandom explanation IS REQUIRED.

That is, RDI can't claim random, provide vague explanation, and maintain credibility.

Either RDI has to ad hominem the results (e.g. the DNA doesn't really match, lab mixup, or the unknown male DNA is actually JR and PR DNA mixed together) or RDI has to accept three (3) locations as nonrandom.

If the three (3) location matching DNA is nonrandom, then a nonrandom explanation is required as to how the DNA got there.

The best fit scenario seems to be JBR's untested playmate's DNA transfered by JBR's own hand without also depositing JBR's own DNA, having collected this DNA from unknown source. Relies on cynic's assertion that a person can deposit someone elses touch DNA while not depositing their own touch DNAthree times in succession [source requested].

Further, I would point out that while we don't factually know that JBR ever raised or lowered her long johns or handled the inside crotch area of her underwear, we can easily infer that someone besides JBR did each of these during the commission of a crime.

RDI seems to be accepting the idea that PR, JR, or JBR handled JBR's longjohns and inside crotch area of her underwear without leaving their own DNA, but instead left the DNA from someone else. Somebody not on the list of DNA-tested people.

I might buy into this if it were one spot, but three spots is far too remote. The DNA was deposited by direct transfer from JBR's attacker. Thats the best, most likely answer.

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you,

No problem, man.

but I sense that RDI feels no great urgency to explain this DNA, as if it were random.

I'm secure enough to admit that may be one factor. Not the only one, though.

That almost makes sense (as an RDI-biased choice) if the DNA was found in just one spot. Now that the DNA is matching three (3) or more locations, random explanation is no longer valid, and a nonrandom explanation IS REQUIRED. That is, RDI can't claim random, provide vague explanation, and maintain credibility.

Let's say you're right, HOTYH. Even then, cynic is correct: there are so many factors to consider, it would take a while to narrow it down enough to give you what you're looking for.

The best fit scenario seems to be JBR's untested playmate's DNA transfered by JBR's own hand without also depositing JBR's own DNA, having collected this DNA from unknown source. Relies on cynic's assertion that a person can deposit someone elses touch DNA while not depositing their own touch DNAthree times in succession [source requested].

Let's be clear, HOTYH: JB's DNA was found in the blood--it was hers, after all--and we don't know about the longjohns because the technician who demonstrated the technique said that the test filters out the victim's DNA and any other DNA that doesn't match the sample they are looking to match. THAT, among other reasons, is precisely why Touch DNA testing is meant to be used only in a limited capacity.

Moreover, you often say it yourself: it wouldn't be any surprise to find DNA from JB or PR or JR on her. You're right; it wouldn't, which is why they probably wouldn't mention it even if they did (unless it was semen or blood). See, that's why I'm always after you about your trust in the media, because the media is very untrustworthy. You could fill libraries with you don't find in them. And what they DON'T report is often as important as what they DO report.

Further, I would point out that while we don't factually know that JBR ever raised or lowered her long johns or handled the inside crotch area of her underwear,

We don't factually know she DIDN'T either. And it certainly wouldn't be any surprise if she did.

we can easily infer that someone besides JBR did each of these during the commission of a crime.

But we don't factually know THAT, either. I won't give you any argument that we can infer it. But we can infer a lot of things, many of which upset you, even when they're (IMO) perfectly reasonable. I don't mind inferences. I've said many times lately that we need inferences and imagination to piece it together. I'm just asking for consistency.

RDI seems to be accepting the idea that PR, JR, or JBR handled JBR's longjohns and inside crotch area of her underwear without leaving their own DNA, but instead left the DNA from someone else. Somebody not on the list of DNA-tested people.

RDI is not the aggregate hive-mind you make it out to be. I'm fully open to the idea that they could leave their own along with the mystery DNA. And as for that someone not being on the list of tested people, I don't find that so hard to believe.

I might buy into this if it were one spot, but three spots is far too remote. The DNA was deposited by direct transfer from JBR's attacker. Thats the best, most likely answer.

Maybe. I respect your opinion. But quite frankly, DNA science has too many problems with it for me to say that something is "too remote."

 

[BBB167893]

JBR had her mother's jacket fibers all over herself.

The way I understood it, she DIDN'T have them all over her. They were only found on items directly related to the crime. Thus the problem.

Parental fibers on their daughter isn't remarkable.

True. Parental fibers on items that supposedly weren't in the house is.

The belief that parental fibers found on their own child is incriminating

A belief that Lou Smit apparently shares, BTW. That might be a problem for you guys. (And as far as he goes, I agree: hopefully he is not a testament of LE today!)

falls somewhat into the same category as the belief that it would ever be to anyones advantage to handwrite a three (3) page note when they lived in the house.

HOTYH, it doesn't matter if it would be to their advantage. The issue is if they THOUGHT it would be to their advantage. As I said earlier, crimes take place in the criminal's imagination before they happen in real life.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No problem, man.



I'm secure enough to admit that may be one factor. Not the only one, though.



Let's say you're right, HOTYH. Even then, cynic is correct: there are so many factors to consider, it would take a while to narrow it down enough to give you what you're looking for.



Let's be clear, HOTYH: JB's DNA was found in the blood--it was hers [source requested], after all--and we don't know about the longjohns because the technician who demonstrated the technique said that the test filters out the victim's DNA and any other DNA that doesn't match the sample they are looking to match[source requested]. THAT, among other reasons, is precisely why Touch DNA testing is meant to be used only in a limited capacity.

Moreover, you often say it yourself: it wouldn't be any surprise to find DNA from JB or PR or JR on her. You're right; it wouldn't, which is why they probably wouldn't mention it even if they did (unless it was semen or blood). See, that's why I'm always after you about your trust in the media, because the media is very untrustworthy. You could fill libraries with you don't find in them. And what they DON'T report is often as important as what they DO report.



We don't factually know she DIDN'T either. And it certainly wouldn't be any surprise if she did.



But we don't factually know THAT, either. I won't give you any argument that we can infer it. But we can infer a lot of things, many of which upset you, even when they're (IMO) perfectly reasonable. I don't mind inferences. I've said many times lately that we need inferences and imagination to piece it together. I'm just asking for consistency.

I think this shows a certain desperation on the part of RDI. Not even able to concede that JBR's underwear was handled in a criminal act. You're not even worried about credibility, are you?



RDI is not the aggregate hive-mind you make it out to be. I'm fully open to the idea that they could leave their own along with the mystery DNA. And as for that someone not being on the list of tested people, I don't find that so hard to believe.

Simply put, possible but not as likely as direct transfer from its owner.


Maybe. I respect your opinion. But quite frankly, DNA science has too many problems with it for me to say that something is "too remote."

The most likely answer is that the DNA was deposited by direct transfer from its owner. Read it and weep. The next RDI theory should include an accomplice who is the DNA owner, in order to maintain RDI credibility. This is because the DNA was not innocently deposited.

Don't take my word for it...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, it doesn't matter if it would be to their advantage. The issue is if they THOUGHT it would be to their advantage. As I said earlier, crimes take place in the criminal's imagination before they happen in real life.

Nobody who lived there thought, at any time, that handwriting three (3) pages of ransom note would be to their advantage. Least of all a multi-millionaire businessman and his college-educated wife. BTW no college level words in the note.

 

[BBB167893]

The most likely answer is that the DNA was deposited by direct transfer from its owner. Read it and weep. The next RDI theory should include an accomplice who is the DNA owner, in order to maintain RDI credibility. This is because the DNA was not innocently deposited.

Don't take my word for it...

And I was so enjoying our intelligent discussion. All good things...

 

[BBB167893]

Nobody who lived there thought, at any time, that handwriting three (3) pages of ransom note would be to their advantage. Least of all a multi-millionaire businessman and his college-educated wife. BTW no college level words in the note.

It's nice to know you're a mind-reader.

And as I've said in the past, intelligence had nothing to do with it. You have to respect the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And I was so enjoying our intelligent discussion. All good things...

Ad hominem. Is this your 'out' to avoid providing the requested sources?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's nice to know you're a mind-reader.

And as I've said in the past, intelligence had nothing to do with it. You have to respect the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

If you only knew how absurd that makes LE appear, to have ever thought it an any time.

Time to turn in some badges.

 

[cynic]

The best fit scenario seems to be JBR's untested playmate's DNA transferred by JBR's own hand without also depositing JBR's own DNA, having collected this DNA from unknown source.

It is a good scenario.

Relies on cynic's assertion that a person can deposit someone elses touch DNA while not depositing their own touch DNA, three times in succession [source requested].

It’s actually not relevant with respect to JBR doing the transfer as her DNA would be expected to be found. It’s a bit more relevant with respect to JR or PR doing the transfer.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method]
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
…
While the DNA of the last person to touch the item may, or may not, be on the item, the DNA of others who may or who may not have touched the item may also be present.
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

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.
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.
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, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1

Further, I would point out that while we don't factually know that JBR ever raised or lowered her long johns or handled the inside crotch area of her underwear,

I would point out that we don't factually know that an intruder ever raised or lowered her long johns or handled the inside crotch area of her underwear

We can easily infer that someone besides JBR did each of these during the commission of a crime.

We can easily infer that JBR did each of these while going to the washroom.

RDI seems to be accepting the idea that PR, JR, or JBR handled JBR's longjohns and inside crotch area of her underwear without leaving their own DNA, but instead left the DNA from someone else. Somebody not on the list of DNA-tested people.

That is one of several possibilities, yes.
Additionally, the DNA from JBR’s panties had her profile as the major donor; the “unknown” male DNA was a minor profile.
Also, with respect to the DNA from the long johns, it is highly probable that JBR’s profile would have been found and excluded because they would consider it natural that the profile of whoever was wearing the clothes would be there. It is further possible that PR’s and even JR’s profile would have been found and excluded as “innocent,” because PR claimed to have put the long johns on JBR and JR held her around the waist as he brought her upstairs.

I might buy into this if it were one spot, but three spots is impossible.

Only 35 cells are required for a profile, therefore, quite possible.
Three blood spots, or a semen stain, different story.

The DNA was deposited by direct transfer from JBR's attacker. That’s the best, most likely answer.

That is possible, certainly, but not the only possibility.

 

[BBB167893]

Ad hominem.

Nonsense. Merely lamenting the situation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nonsense. Merely lamenting the situation.

Is this your 'out' to avoid providing the requested sources?

 

[BBB167893]

If you only knew how absurd that makes LE appear, to have ever thought it an any time.

From what I've seen, that's STRICTLY a matter of opinion.

Time to turn in some badges.

:banghead:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We can easily infer that JBR did each of these while going to the washroom. We know JBR went to the washroom? No. We know a criminal handled JBR's underwear? Yes. You're not ready to infer anything yet.
That is one of several possibilities, yes.
Additionally, the DNA from JBR’s panties had her profile as the major donor; the “unknown” male DNA was a minor profile. [Source requested]Also, with respect to the DNA from the long johns, it is highly probable that JBR’s profile would have been found and excluded because they would consider it natural that the profile of whoever was wearing the clothes would be there. Did you make this up? You've no idea if JBR's DNA was on the long johns along with unknown male DNA, do you. It is further possible that PR’s and even JR’s profile would have been found and excluded as “innocent,” because PR claimed to have put the long johns on JBR and JR held her around the waist as he brought her upstairs. Its also possible that only the DNA from the unknown male was recovered from the waistband. Only 35 cells are required for a profile, therefore, quite possible.
Three blood spots, or a semen stain, different story.
That is possible, certainly, but not the only possibility.

The most likely transfer scenario for three (3) separate DNA samples from an unknown male is direct transfer. We already know direct contact was made by a criminal. It is folly to argue this point.

 

[cynic]

We know JBR went to the washroom? No. We know a criminal handled JBR's underwear? Yes.

No, we don’t – it could be due to any number of alternative explanations

Did you make this up? You've no idea if JBR's DNA was on the long johns along with unknown male DNA, do you.

Think about it, (and we have gone over this before, on this thread, as a matter of fact,) if a tech were to come by and razor scrape an article of clothing that you were wearing next to your skin, are you telling me that they wouldn’t be able to find your DNA profile. If you can’t understand that, there is little point in continuing.

Its also possible that only the DNA from the unknown male was recovered from the waistband.

Highly unlikely, bordering on impossible.

 

[BBB167893]

Is this your 'out' to avoid providing the requested sources?

Sorry, HOTYH, I didn't notice the requests. And as for me having an "out," you weren't too quick to address my points, I notice.

With that out of the way:

JB's DNA was found in the blood--it was hers [source requested]

Source for what? That the blood was hers?

the technician who demonstrated the technique said that the test filters out the victim's DNA and any other DNA that doesn't match the sample they are looking to match[source requested]

The source for that was an interview done by the BODE technician for CNN Headline News the week this story broke. Sadly, her name escapes me.

I think this shows a certain desperation on the part of RDI. Not even able to concede that JBR's underwear was handled in a criminal act.

Desperation, my eye. I don't concede it because you can't establish a nexus that puts anyone else inside the house that night to COMMIT the criminal act you suggest in the first place.

You're not even worried about credibility, are you?

EXCUSE ME?? I'll pretend you didn't say that.

Simply put, possible but not as likely as direct transfer from its owner.

I'll thank you for giving me that much.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, we don’t – it could be due to any number of alternative explanations
Think about it, (and we have gone over this before, on this thread, as a matter of fact,) if a tech were to come by and razor scrape an article of clothing that you were wearing next to your skin, are you telling me that they wouldn’t be able to find your DNA profile. If you can’t understand that, there is little point in continuing. Highly unlikely, bordering on impossible.

Ad hominem.