DNA Revisited

[BBB167893]

Yes, it's good that they have gotten better.

Not necessarily, Squirrel. It's only good if people know how to USE them. That's the big problem in this case: the people in charge didn't have that wisdom. The CSI effect was strong with them.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

How are they using anything wrong of relevance?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

And as per the diligent DA, what you have not been told is, was there any Ramsey DNA on the size-12's. If so what type?

We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.

Fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on the size-12's,

There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

 

[DeeDee249]

We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.



There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Fibers do not exclude anyone. Fibers can INCLUDE someone or something (such as fibers from a car's carpets found on a murder victim may indicate the victim was in the car). Also, just because someone's fibers are not present, doesn't meant they were NOT there. It is WHERE the fibers were found that is important. They were found in and on items exclusive to the crime scene: wound into the knot of the garrote, on the INSIDE of the tape around her mouth, in the paint tote from which the brush used to make the garrote was taken and where a remnant of the brush was found, and on the INSIDE of a pair of panties found on a dead child.
In ALL cases, these fibers were from clothing worn by the parents THAT day. In addition, Patsy told LE she NEVER wore that fleecy red sweater jacket in the basement nor while painting. She was NOT the one who took that paint tote to the basement in the first place, she asked LHP to take it down there as she was setting up for the Rs party on the 23rd. Patsy said she used to keep her paint tote in the Butler's Pantry, and she asked LHP to bring it to the basement because she planned to set up a coat rack in the Butler's Pantry for guests' coats.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Fibers do not exclude anyone. Fibers can INCLUDE someone or something (such as fibers from a car's carpets found on a murder victim may indicate the victim was in the car). Also, just because someone's fibers are not present, doesn't meant they were NOT there.

I agree with you. As I understand it, fibers can only exclude other fiber sources, not identify them. Fibers can be said to be to consistent with, but can't be said to be sourced to, a specific fiber source. My point was, it's inappropriate to say JR's shirt fibers were on the underwear. Fibers consistent with his shirt were found (possibly).

It is WHERE the fibers were found that is important. They were found in and on items exclusive to the crime scene: wound into the knot of the garrote, on the INSIDE of the tape around her mouth, in the paint tote from which the brush used to make the garrote was taken and where a remnant of the brush was found, and on the INSIDE of a pair of panties found on a dead child.
In ALL cases, these fibers were from clothing worn by the parents THAT day. In addition, Patsy told LE she NEVER wore that fleecy red sweater jacket in the basement nor while painting. She was NOT the one who took that paint tote to the basement in the first place, she asked LHP to take it down there as she was setting up for the Rs party on the 23rd. Patsy said she used to keep her paint tote in the Butler's Pantry, and she asked LHP to bring it to the basement because she planned to set up a coat rack in the Butler's Pantry for guests' coats.

The problem with all this is that the crime scene being in their house, their clothing fibers could plausibly be in many places And on that night, when Patsy put Jonbenet to bed, fibers could have transferred to Jonbenet's clothing and bedding.

We have only been given small snapshots of all the evidence, and these are often second hand and even some of which may be deliberately false, which all makes it hard to say anything with certainty.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree with you. As I understand it, fibers can only exclude other fiber sources, not identify them. Fibers can be said to be to consistent with, but can't be said to be sourced to, a specific fiber source. My point was, it's inappropriate to say JR's shirt fibers were on the underwear. Fibers consistent with his shirt were found (possibly).



The problem with all this is that the crime scene being in their house, their clothing fibers could plausibly be in many places And on that night, when Patsy put Jonbenet to bed, fibers could have transferred to Jonbenet's clothing and bedding.

We have only been given small snapshots of all the evidence, and these are often second hand and even some of which may be deliberately false, which all makes it hard to say anything with certainty.

I totally agree with your first paragraph,
But the problem with the next part it is that there was NO innocent way for the parents fibers to get where they were found innocently. Again- Patsy CLAIMED not to have worn her red jacket in the basement or while painting. JB's body was covered with an afghan, only her feet and lower legs exposed. Even in the basement, her panties were covered by lonhjohns and her white blanket. JR anf FW alone were seen (by each other) to have handled the tape on her mouth. Not Patsy- if her fibers were transferred, why ONLY her fibers. And why WEREN'T her fibers found on the panties, if she was the one who put them in the drawer.
Again, I agree with your last paragraph as well. We have little pieces of a puzzle that no one will ever see again. The house and its contends as they were then are GONE forever.
There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

 

[UKGuy]

We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.



There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Smelly Squirrel,

We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.

Sure but I am referring to what you have not been told!

There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Care to cite these conflicting reports?

but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Fibers can identify and be traced to a source. Like your requirement for competing theories to be disconfirmed, discomfirming multiple sources for the fibers requires that there be a list of them. I would suggest to you in the case of John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt.

Your characterization is misleading.

Not quite. It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence, not an aspect of some greek tragedy. In accepting LW's argument regarding the fibers, which is based on a balance of probabilities, might it be, you are misleading yourself?

In another post

There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

As DeeDee249 remarks the DA has not informed you on this matter!


.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree with you. As I understand it, fibers can only exclude other fiber sources, not identify them. Fibers can be said to be to consistent with, but can't be said to be sourced to, a specific fiber source. My point was, it's inappropriate to say JR's shirt fibers were on the underwear. Fibers consistent with his shirt were found (possibly).

Oh, yeah. I'm sure there were a million Israeli-made shirts in Boulder on Dec. 25, 1996!

The problem with all this is that the crime scene being in their house, their clothing fibers could plausibly be in many places And on that night, when Patsy put Jonbenet to bed, fibers could have transferred to Jonbenet's clothing and bedding.

That's precisely the point, Squirrel: they weren't FOUND in "many places." They were found in SPECIFIC areas where they should NOT have been, according to the Rs' story. I've only pointed that out a million times.

Did you SEE John's reaction when they told him? I thought he'd s**t his pants!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I totally agree with your first paragraph,
But the problem with the next part it is that there was NO innocent way for the parents fibers to get where they were found innocently.

First, it's, if it is their fibers. "Consist with" does not necessarily equal "same source." Second, if it is their fibers, secondary transfer is a possibility. Third, we don't know all the fiber evidence, even if what we think we know is true.

Again- Patsy CLAIMED not to have worn her red jacket in the basement or while painting.

She lived in the same house. It's not so unimaginable that she came across the tray at some time, if it was primary transfer. Secondary transfer is also possible.

JB's body was covered with an afghan, only her feet and lower legs exposed. Even in the basement, her panties were covered by lonhjohns and her white blanket. JR anf FW alone were seen (by each other) to have handled the tape on her mouth. Not Patsy- if her fibers were transferred, why ONLY her fibers.

We don't know that only her matching fibers were found.

And why WEREN'T her fibers found on the panties, if she was the one who put them in the drawer.

Very confused by this question. Are you saying she didn't put them in a drawer? They were new panties, possibly in a package, wherein no fibers should be expected. Also, she wouldn't have bought them that same day (if she did at all); who knows what she was wearing at that time.

Again, I agree with your last paragraph as well. We have little pieces of a puzzle that no one will ever see again. The house and its contends as they were then are GONE forever.
There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

I would agree if his matching shirt fibers were in the panties, he needs to explain it. But that's a big if. As I just said in another thread, the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted yet leads me to believe the fiber evidence isn't that strong.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.

Smelly Squirrel,

Sure but I am referring to what you have not been told!

If there wer JR DNA on the panties and longjohns, he would be in jail by now I suspect.

There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Care to cite these conflicting reports?

Dark Fibers in Genital Area - JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia

Fibers can identify and be traced to a source.

They can't be traced to the precise source. They can only be said to be consistent with a source. Even DNA evidence doesn't tell you it a came from a specific person. It can only tell you a person's DNA profile matches the evidence profile (as may other people's DNA, at varying frequencies within a population).

Like your requirement for competing theories to be disconfirmed, discomfirming multiple sources for the fibers requires that there be a list of them. I would suggest to you in the case of John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt.

You have no idea whether the alleged fibers are common or rare. Being made in Israel (if it was) doesn't mean the shirt fibers are rare.

Fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on the size-12's,

Not quite. It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence,

You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report?

not an aspect of some greek tragedy.

?

In accepting LW's argument regarding the fibers, which is based on a balance of probabilities, might it be, you are misleading yourself?

What Lin Wood said in that interview about not having seen the report characterization and any other fiber evidence is exactly the right and fair way to look at it.

In another post

There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

As DeeDee249 remarks the DA has not informed you on this matter!

I've already answered the shirt fibers. As to the other part,

Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

She said Jonbenet could have put them on, she doesn't know if she did. And Jonbenet's DNA is found on the panties, from blood at least.

IDI generally doesn't say Jonbenet put the panties on anyway.

Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Oh, yeah. I'm sure there were a million Israeli-made shirts in Boulder on Dec. 25, 1996!

If the fibers were matched to his shirt, that doesn't tell us how rare the fibers are. Being made in Israel doesn't necessarily make a fiber rare.

That's precisely the point, Squirrel: they weren't FOUND in "many places." They were found in SPECIFIC areas where they should NOT have been, according to the Rs' story. I've only pointed that out a million times.

So you've seen the full fiber evidence collected? Please share.

Did you SEE John's reaction when they told him? I thought he'd s**t his pants!

I didn't see it, but if I were told something that implied I raped and murdered my daughter, I'd be upset too.

 

[Chili Fries]

I looked into the Bode Technologies lab a couple of years ago and was surprised to see their lack of quality system accreditations. I wrote them an e-mail asking about their quality assurance procedures but they never got back to me. I just checked out their website again and it looks like they've really improved in that aspect...now they hold an ISO 17025 (which is the international testing standard) and a couple of other accreditations. Seems obvious to me that this area was something they realized had to be improved so they did so in the last two years.

 

[UKGuy]

If there wer JR DNA on the panties and longjohns, he would be in jail by now I suspect.



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea




They can't be traced to the precise source. They can only be said to be consistent with a source. Even DNA evidence doesn't tell you it a came from a specific person. It can only tell you a person's DNA profile matches the evidence profile (as may other people's DNA, at varying frequencies within a population).



You have no idea whether the alleged fibers are common or rare. Being made in Israel (if it was) doesn't mean the shirt fibers are rare.



You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report?



?



What Lin Wood said in that interview about not having seen the report characterization and any other fiber evidence is exactly the right and fair way to look at it.



I've already answered the shirt fibers. As to the other part,



She said Jonbenet could have put them on, she doesn't know if she did. And Jonbenet's DNA is found on the panties, from blood at least.

IDI generally doesn't say Jonbenet put the panties on anyway.



Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

Smelly Squirrel,

If there wer JR DNA on the panties and longjohns, he would be in jail by now I suspect.

Well your suspicion may be entirely incorrect, since JR is not in jail, having remarried recently, and of course you do not know if there was any JR dna on the underwear or longjohns. The negative position has never been claimed by the DA or Team Ramsey. Curious that!


http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea
I assumed you were referring to official reports not individual assertions.

They can't be traced to the precise source. They can only be said to be consistent with a source. Even DNA evidence doesn't tell you it a came from a specific person. It can only tell you a person's DNA profile matches the evidence profile (as may other people's DNA, at varying frequencies within a population).

Fibers can be matched using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Polarized Light Microscopy http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/polarized-light-microscopy

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/fibers

Analysis of fibers that are found on a victim will involve determining the types of fibers present at the scene. For example, a fiber can be transferred from a carpet to a body. This fiber will not be as significant as a fiber found on a victim that is not present anywhere else at the scene. If a similar fiber is found on a suspect, this can be a powerful piece of evidence linking the suspect to the scene.

Normally finding lets say, Levi Strauss fibers, at a crime scene are helpful if you have a suspect who wears similar jeans, but in court this trace evidence may not command much relevance as other people may be produced who wear similar mass marketed jeans. If those black fibers originate from an Iraeli manufactured cotton shirt, and unless you can magic up someone else locally wearing a similar Israeli made shirt, then the fiber evidence will link JR to the crime-scene. Your claim about only consistency being available is the inverse of the touch dna evidence where we have a dna profile but no match. Here we have a potential match and an identity which increases the balance of probability argument very close to 1.

As an aside consider the The Nebra Sky Disk. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Disc[/ame] which people claim is wholly european in origin and incorporates astronomical information which predates the building of the Egyptian pyramids. Now those that disagree suggest it was manufactered in the near east and traded to europeans, or was even a forgery. All suggesting that ancient europeans, as long known, were stupid, savage and uncivilized. Now the copper in the bronze disk could come from anywhere, it might be consistent with multiple sources, but X-ray fluorescence determined that the copper was mined at Bischofshofen in Austria.

You have no idea whether the alleged fibers are common or rare. Being made in Israel (if it was) doesn't mean the shirt fibers are rare.

Who said anything about rarity or commonality. I was referring to any method for rejecting JR as a source for the fibers e.g. you must have a list of alternative sources. Thus decreasing the balance of probability argument, or making them inconsistent with the samples.

Not quite. It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence,

You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report?

No thats why its an inference!

not an aspect of some greek tragedy.

I was employing the forensic evidence in support of my inference. Greek tragedy explored human character, which became known as characterisation yielding perrenial favorites such as Friends, We Love Lucy, Happy Days etc. They got there before Hollywood. All of which has nothing to do with describing forensic detail.

What Lin Wood said in that interview about not having seen the report characterization and any other fiber evidence is exactly the right and fair way to look at it.

He is in the business of defending JR nor practising the right and fair way.

She said Jonbenet could have put them on, she doesn't know if she did. And Jonbenet's DNA is found on the panties, from blood at

We are not talking about blood. Introducing other evidence is spurious. If JonBenet put those size-12's on then her skin cells should be in abundance on the outside of them. Patsy's skin cells should also be on the size-12's exterior. Naturally since he played no part in redressing JonBenet the night before, JR's skin cells and prior fibers should not appear anywhere on the size-12's. We have not been given this information or assurance by the DA.

Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

Precisely, nobody. Now that and your latter claim regarding the 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA is a textbook definition of something being inconsistent!

If its IDI then you expect the Ramsey claims to be consistent with the forensic evidence, currently this is not the case.



.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Hey, UKGuy.

Smelly Squirrel,

Well your suspicion may be entirely incorrect, since JR is not in jail, having remarried recently, and of course you do not know if there was any JR dna on the underwear or longjohns. The negative position has never been claimed by the DA or Team Ramsey. Curious that!

No more curious than that the positive claim hasn't been claimed by LE. If they had that JR DNA, if they had matching shirt fibers in the crotch, I would find it very persuasive sitting on a jury. The DA/LE would know it would be great evidence too if they had it. That's why I doubt they have that. Let's not invent what we don't have any proven knowledge of.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea
I assumed you were referring to official reports not individual assertions.

Why? Your claims about the fibers aren't based on official reports. Nobody has those, and no official statement or news report has been made either, that's a reason I have doubts about those claims as well.

Fibers can be matched using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Polarized Light Microscopy http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/polarized-light-microscopy

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/fibers

It can match to a single, specific source? I don't see where it says that in there.

Normally finding lets say, Levi Strauss fibers, at a crime scene are helpful if you have a suspect who wears similar jeans, but in court this trace evidence may not command much relevance as other people may be produced who wear similar mass marketed jeans. If those black fibers originate from an Iraeli manufactured cotton shirt, and unless you can magic up someone else locally wearing a similar Israeli made shirt, then the fiber evidence will link JR to the crime-scene.

You keep assuming there is something unusual about those shirt fibers. You don't know that. Maybe there is, but prove it first.

Your claim about only consistency being available is the inverse of the touch dna evidence where we have a dna profile but no match. Here we have a potential match and an identity which increases the balance of probability argument very close to 1.

We don't even know if we have the match for sure, I've explained my doubts already on that. If there is such a match in that location, I do agree it's good evidence against JR, barring anything exculpatory. Show me the evidence first though.

As an aside consider the The Nebra Sky Disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Disc which people claim is wholly european in origin and incorporates astronomical information which predates the building of the Egyptian pyramids. Now those that disagree suggest it was manufactered in the near east and traded to europeans, or was even a forgery. All suggesting that ancient europeans, as long known, were stupid, savage and uncivilized. Now the copper in the bronze disk could come from anywhere, it might be consistent with multiple sources, but X-ray fluorescence determined that the copper was mined at Bischofshofen in Austria.

And this has what to do with shirt fibers exactly?

Who said anything about rarity or commonality. I was referring to any method for rejecting JR as a source for the fibers e.g. you must have a list of alternative sources. Thus decreasing the balance of probability argument, or making them inconsistent with the samples.

You said, "John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt." I'll give my point another way: if the alleged fibers found are also matched to many other types of shirts, then it's not as strong of evidence that it must have come from JR's shirt. You keep saying "Israeli" as though any fiber from the shirt is wholly unique and couldn't be found in any other shirt. Again, you don't know that.

You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report

No thats why its an inference!

You said, "It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence," [bbm]. (First, an inference is not direct. Deductions are.) So, do you have the forensic evidence or not?

I was employing the forensic evidence in support of my inference. Greek tragedy explored human character, which became known as characterisation yielding perrenial favorites such as Friends, We Love Lucy, Happy Days etc. They got there before Hollywood. All of which has nothing to do with describing forensic detail.

OK, I see.

He is in the business of defending JR nor practising the right and fair way.

Doesn't mean nothing he says is accurate.

We are not talking about blood.

You said "HER skin cells/DNA" and weren't clear you meant only skin cells DNA. And that's why I said, "from blood at least."

Introducing other evidence is spurious.

*eyeroll*

If JonBenet put those size-12's on then her skin cells should be in abundance on the outside of them.

Your point? IDI doesn't say she must have.

Patsy's skin cells should also be on the size-12's exterior.

If JBR put them on, PR's skin should be on there? I don't follow.

Naturally since he played no part in redressing JonBenet the night before,

If you believe their accounts, yes. I didn't know you found them so believable. (Not saying I doubt the account.)

JR's skin cells and prior fibers should not appear anywhere on the size-12's.

There could be an explanation for it,* but, yes I would agree on the unlikelihood.

*For example, on the inside of the underwear, there could be fibers from whatever fibers might be on her already.

We have not been given this information or assurance by the DA.

You're trying to make absence of report equal absence of evidence.

Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

Precisely, nobody. Now that and your latter claim regarding the 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA is a textbook definition of something being inconsistent!

If its IDI then you expect the Ramsey claims to be consistent with the forensic evidence, currently this is not the case.

I'm not following the inconsistency. What forensic evidence is inconsistent with what claims?

 

[UKGuy]

Hey, UKGuy.



No more curious than that the positive claim hasn't been claimed by LE. If they had that JR DNA, if they had matching shirt fibers in the crotch, I would find it very persuasive sitting on a jury. The DA/LE would know it would be great evidence too if they had it. That's why I doubt they have that. Let's not invent what we don't have any proven knowledge of.



Why? Your claims about the fibers aren't based on official reports. Nobody has those, and no official statement or news report has been made either, that's a reason I have doubts about those claims as well.



It can match to a single, specific source? I don't see where it says that in there.



You keep assuming there is something unusual about those shirt fibers. You don't know that. Maybe there is, but prove it first.



We don't even know if we have the match for sure, I've explained my doubts already on that. If there is such a match in that location, I do agree it's good evidence against JR, barring anything exculpatory. Show me the evidence first though.



And this has what to do with shirt fibers exactly?



You said, "John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt." I'll give my point another way: if the alleged fibers found are also matched to many other types of shirts, then it's not as strong of evidence that it must have come from JR's shirt. You keep saying "Israeli" as though any fiber from the shirt is wholly unique and couldn't be found in any other shirt. Again, you don't know that.



You said, "It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence," [bbm]. (First, an inference is not direct. Deductions are.) So, do you have the forensic evidence or not?



OK, I see.



Doesn't mean nothing he says is accurate.



You said "HER skin cells/DNA" and weren't clear you meant only skin cells DNA. And that's why I said, "from blood at least."



*eyeroll*



Your point? IDI doesn't say she must have.



If JBR put them on, PR's skin should be on there? I don't follow.



If you believe their accounts, yes. I didn't know you found them so believable. (Not saying I doubt the account.)



There could be an explanation for it,* but, yes I would agree on the unlikelihood.

*For example, on the inside of the underwear, there could be fibers from whatever fibers might be on her already.



You're trying to make absence of report equal absence of evidence.



I'm not following the inconsistency. What forensic evidence is inconsistent with what claims?

Smelly Squirrel,

And this has what to do with shirt fibers exactly?

Not a lot except by analogy, with the reference to consistency.

I'm not following the inconsistency. What forensic evidence is inconsistent with what claims?

The IDI claim regarding the touch dna and the absence of evidence confirming that there is no Ramsey dna where we would expect it not to be. If you had the latter information the IDI claim would be consistent with the forensic evidence.

You said, "It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence," [bbm]. (First, an inference is not direct. Deductions are.) So, do you have the forensic evidence or not?

An inference is any valid rule that allows you reach sound conclusions. It may be inductive or deductive.


John Ramsey's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is

22 our belief based on forensic evidence that

23 there are hairs that are associated, that the

24 source is the collared black shirt that you

25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

0058

1 underpants, and I wondered if you --

2 A. ********. I don't believe that.

3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to

4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --

5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to

6 disgrace --

7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I

8 think you are. That's disgusting.

So my premise for the inference was Mr. Levin's claim e.g. our belief based on forensic evidence which I would assert is not as you described Your characterization is misleading..

Later on the interview the shirt is referred to as a woolen shirt, and if it is Israeli manufactured then technologically matching a sample to it does not appear to be particularly problematic.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested. Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.
Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"? Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.
Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.
Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

 

[UKGuy]

Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested. Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.
Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"? Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.
Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.
Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

DeeDee249,
Yes JR's response speaks for itself.

Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

Of course they talked, wonder what a big bit molested would look like? Similarly with Pam, when she was asked to do her supermarket run on the R's house. Would she not eventually ask why, and was JonBenet molested etc? Guess what, she and the rest of them know the truth, but have elected for silence.


.

 

[BBB167893]

First, it's, if it is their fibers. "Consist with" does not necessarily equal "same source." Second, if it is their fibers, secondary transfer is a possibility. Third, we don't know all the fiber evidence, even if what we think we know is true.

You're forgetting one crucial thing, Smelly Squirrel: Patsy digging herself deeper. She couldn't give an explanation in 2000. TWO FULL YEARS later she gave an explanation to a news reporter, but her story ("I had my whole body on her body") is in conflict with John's own writings in DOI, about how he had covered JB's body. Wendy Murphy, the former prosecutor has stated that in order for Patsy's story to work, it would require "flat-out magic."

I would agree if his matching shirt fibers were in the panties, he needs to explain it.

Which he has not.

But that's a big if. As I just said in another thread, the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted yet leads me to believe the fiber evidence isn't that strong.

Don't fool yourself, Smelly Squirrel. I've only said this a million times: the Rs weren't prosecuted because no one could ever be sure which one of them did what. It's called "Cross fingerpointing," the same thing Casey Anthony's attorney did to George. The only way to break such a stalemate is to get one suspect to confess. And believe you me, I'm going to be talking about THAT!

 

[BBB167893]

If the fibers were matched to his shirt, that doesn't tell us how rare the fibers are. Being made in Israel doesn't necessarily make a fiber rare.

It's not just that, Smelly Squirrel. Fiber comparison isn't merely side-by-side under a microscope, although that is part of it. It's actually possible now to trace garments back to where they were made, and, with luck, find out what stores they were shipped to, and, with even MORE luck, find out who bought them.

So you've seen the full fiber evidence collected? Please share.

That's not what I said. THIS is what I said: the Ramseys have always claimed that they did not have any cord or duct tape in the house, thus, the intruder must have brought them with him. As such, the idea of an innocent secondary transfer is shaky, at best. But what completely blows it out of the water is Patsy's attempt to explain why her fibers were found on those items: throwing herself on JB's body. Problem is, as DOI and the police reports we know of have pointed out, she never actually TOUCHED JB.

I didn't see it, but if I were told something that implied I raped and murdered my daughter, I'd be upset too.

I don't know, Squirrel. To me, it seems like a case of "a hit dog barks."

 

[BBB167893]

He is in the business of defending JR nor practising the right and fair way.

I was going to say, UKGuy, Lin Wood doesn't have a right or fair bone in his whole *ing body! He's a liar, a hypocrite, a blackguard and a foul stench in the nostrils of honest people.