DNA Revisited

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hand(s)

isn't a scenario either.

Who's hands? Do you believe the unknown male DNA came from PR's hands?

Are we one-stepping? OK.

PR picked up DNA not from a known male, but from an unknown male, right? Thats going against the odds right there. If you're right, then the DNA would most likely belong to a known character. Thats interesting. How did she do that? When? Why is her profile not reported alongside his profile on JBR's leggings? She deposited his and not hers with it when hers should be more prevalent? More going against the odds. When did PR's hand make contact with a blood stain on the inside crotch of her underwear? Now thats really remote, for PR to make contact with an unknown male's DNA inside JBR's underwear and not leave her own. Boy if they found PR's DNA there you can bet ST would've told us all about it.

C'mon you're circumventing the obvious and its obvious. I totally understand why RDI scenarios for innocent DNA transfers consist of one word! Remotely possible scenario? I don't think so. Not even remotely possible. Most likely scenario? No way.

Unknown male DNA on PR's hands, transferred to three locations while not depositing her own in any of the three, is not the most likely scenario for this DNA to be in these exact places. It would be exponentially more likely this DNA was deposited by direct contact from the owner.

Would you like to describe a different scenario that doesn't involve PR's hands depositing unknown male DNA? Because that secondary transfer scenario is not as likely as direct transfer.

 

[DeeDee249]

No, you did not think this up out of thin air. Henry Lee himself performed that test.

Just want to be clear on this, SD. Did Dr. Lee test the remaining panties from the set that the Rs sent to LE YEARS later? I thought there was no way to prove they WERE part of that original set.

OR did Dr. Lee test samples that were bought just for the test?

 

[BBB167893]

Just want to be clear on this, SD. Did Dr. Lee test the remaining panties from the set that the Rs sent to LE YEARS later? I thought there was no way to prove they WERE part of that original set.

OR did Dr. Lee test samples that were bought just for the test?

I realized I needed a refresher this afternoon, so I went back over my notes. He did in fact test samples that were bought for the test. He got them from the same company.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hand(s)
Feel free to provide your scenario for the issues I posted. BTW.
Just a reminder.
What is the scenario for the following IDI “problems?”
Fibers consistent with PR’s jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, and were found on the sticky side of duct tape found on the mouth. Source requested. An intruder wore PR's jacket to fool JBR as he carried her to the basement, and to fool neighbors looking thru a window at night. Or, an intruder had already handled JBR who herself was innocently covered in PR's jacket fibers, and then transferred the fibers to the paint tray.

Additionally, fibers consistent with JR’s shirt were found in the crotch area of JBR. Source requested. He put her on his shoulders like most dads do with their kids. Or, they or the pants were in the same dryer in recent loads. Recently worn clothes would've been recently dried, right?
Unknown male DNA was not found anywhere on her body despite the fact that pelvic area swabs were taken into evidence. Source requested. Maybe they stopped looking. We know that the sexual assault was atypical.
Fingerprints from the intruder were not found anywhere, including JBR’s body, despite the fact that, allegedly, the intruder would have not been wearing gloves when he pulled down JBR’s long johns. Source requested.. We don't know for a fact that the intruder was not wearing gloves when they pulled down the long johns.

My best effort at scenarios are in blue. Please note they do not consist of one word nor do they evade.

It helps to keep in perspective that PR and JR fibers are expected to be prevalent in the house, while unknown male DNA is not expected to be fresh on JBR's clothing, in places consistent with the crime.

 

[DeeDee249]

My best effort at scenarios are in blue. Please note they do not consist of one word nor do they evade.

Do you really think JB would mistake someone wearing her mother's jacket for her mother? Remember, if IDI, then it was that person who fed her the pineapple, too. She was awake enough to eat it.

 

[BBB167893]

Do you really think JB would mistake someone wearing her mother's jacket for her mother? Remember, if IDI, then it was that person who fed her the pineapple, too. She was awake enough to eat it.

No kidding!

 

[BBB167893]

My best effort at scenarios are in blue.

I wouldn't brag about that.

It helps to keep in perspective that PR and JR fibers are expected to be prevalent in the house,

That's the whole point, HOTYH: they weren't. Those fibers weren't found on JB's body. They were found, as you put it, "in places consistent with the crime." I don't know any plainer way to say it.

while unknown male DNA is not expected to be fresh on JBR's clothing,

Excuse me? FRESH??

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Do you really think JB would mistake someone wearing her mother's jacket for her mother? Remember, if IDI, then it was that person who fed her the pineapple, too. She was awake enough to eat it.

Have you ever watched a movie called 'The Sting'?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JBR had her mother's jacket fibers all over herself. If true, so what? This is easily assumed to be a natural, innocent occurence. JBR could then easily transfer these fibers to various locations. Likewise with JR's shirt. Parental fibers on their daughter isn't remarkable.

PR and JR fibers on JBR are not remarkable because we already know there would be innocent transfer.

Unknown male DNA is another story because we don't already know of an innocent transfer, and nobody can present a likely scenario.

The paint tote is more challenging but there are several ways it could happen. Thats why I asked for a source because some RDI just want to wave the RDI banner saying things believed to be fact, like the intruder removed gloves, when we don't know it to be a fact. The intruder wearing PR's jacket is not impossible and has some advantages as well. Similarly placing the RN on the stairs has advantage for intruder not for PR or JR.

The belief that parental fibers found on their own child is incriminating 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. Truly ludicrous and hopefully not a testament of LE today.

 

[cynic]

Who's hands? Do you believe the unknown male DNA came from PR's hands?

If secondary transfer, then PR or JBR in contact with a male who has not been swabbed for DNA. This is quite likely if that male is a child.

Are we one-stepping? OK.
PR picked up DNA not from a known male, but from an unknown male, right? Thats going against the odds right there. If you're right, then the DNA would most likely belong to a known character.

It may well be a known “character,” especially if they are a child

Thats interesting. How did she do that? When? Why is her profile not reported alongside his profile on JBR's leggings? She deposited his and not hers with it when hers should be more prevalent? More going against the odds.

Studies involving skin cell “shedding,” show that it is possible that the person depositing the DNA, may not leave the strongest profile.
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
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

When did PR's hand make contact with a blood stain on the inside crotch of her underwear? Now thats really remote, for PR to make contact with an unknown male's DNA inside JBR's underwear and not leave her own. Boy if they found PR's DNA there you can bet ST would've told us all about it.

The bleeding would have been onto the skin cells containing the “unknown” DNA.

C'mon you're circumventing the obvious and its obvious. I totally understand why RDI scenarios for innocent DNA transfers consist of one word! Remotely possible scenario? I don't think so. Not even remotely possible. Most likely scenario? No way.
Unknown male DNA on PR's hands, transferred to three locations while not depositing her own in any of the three, is not the most likely scenario for this DNA to be in these exact places. It would be exponentially more likely this DNA was deposited by direct contact from the owner.
Would you like to describe a different scenario that doesn't involve PR's hands depositing unknown male DNA? Because that secondary transfer scenario is not as likely as direct transfer.

It may or may not be the most likely; it doesn’t matter, as I’ve suggested in the Janelle Patton case, the most likely scenario involved two female assailants. That’s not what happened though.

Keep in mind that it may be JBR doing the transfer, as well as the possibility of contamination due to carelessness, and it doesn’t necessarily stop there.

 

[WHITEFANG]

If secondary transfer, then PR or JBR in contact with a male who has not been swabbed for DNA. This is quite likely if that male is a child.
It may well be a known “character,” especially if they are a child
The whole case is “against the odds,” what’s your point?
Studies involving “shedding,” show that it is possible that the person depositing the DNA, may not leave the strongest profile.
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
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf
The bleeding would have been onto the skin cells containing the “unknown” DNA.

It may or may not be the most likely; it doesn’t matter, as I’ve suggested in the Janelle Patton case, the most likely scenario involved two female assailants. That’s not what happened though.


Keep in mind that it may be JBR doing the transfer, as well as the possibility of contamination due to carelessness, but it doesn’t necessarily stop there.

We can take anything to its logical extreme and wind up with a staged landing on the moon. If we define our best theories using our best supporting evidence/documentation/information to establish our reasons, it would be interesting to see what we end up with.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It may or may not be the most likely; it doesn’t matter, as I’ve suggested in the Janelle Patton case, the most likely scenario involved two female assailants. That’s not what happened though.

Keep in mind that it may be JBR doing the transfer, as well as the possibility of contamination due to carelessness, and it doesn’t necessarily stop there.

Its obvious from reading your post that even you believe the innocent transfer from PR's hands isn't as likely as direct transfer.

It seems to me, (arguing RDI's argument for them) that if JBR handled an item and got unknown male DNA on HER hands, she could then spread this DNA to inside her underwear and in her longjohns in the course of putting on or taking off or going the bathroom. The most likely owner of unknown male DNA would have to be a playmate. This assumes an innocent transfer scenario.

 

[BOESP]

Its obvious from reading your post that even you believe the innocent transfer from PR's hands isn't as likely as direct transfer.

It seems to me, (arguing RDI's argument for them) that if JBR handled an item and got unknown male DNA on HER hands, she could then spread this DNA to inside her underwear and in her longjohns in the course of putting on or taking off or going the bathroom. The most likely owner of unknown male DNA would have to be a playmate. This assumes an innocent transfer scenario.

I didn't take Cynic's post that way at all.

Misrepresentation of opposing views seems to be the new tactic used by those supporting the Ramseys.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Fang, you're just reinforcing my argument. Look how those things were treated: swept under the rug as quickly as possible. Same deal here. They tried the same approach. Trouble is, this one wouldn't just go away. This wasn't just "kids being kids" or some other thing; this was a dead child.

I don't think this is a valid point.

 

[BBB167893]

It seems to me, (arguing RDI's argument for them) that if JBR handled an item and got unknown male DNA on HER hands, she could then spread this DNA to inside her underwear and in her longjohns in the course of putting on or taking off or going the bathroom. The most likely owner of unknown male DNA would have to be a playmate. This assumes an innocent transfer scenario.

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

 

[BBB167893]

I didn't take Cynic's post that way at all.

Misrepresentation of opposing views seems to be the new tactic used by those supporting the Ramseys.

Easy, BOESP. If it is misrepresentation, cynic will let us know.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't think this is a valid point.

Would it be asking too much for you to explain WHY you don't think it's a valid point? Because from where I'm sitting, it's pretty hard to ignore. I can't not see what my eyes see, you know?

 

[WHITEFANG]

No, you did not think this up out of thin air. Henry Lee himself performed that test.

Not with the same pack of underwear.

 

[BBB167893]

Not with the same pack of underwear.

That's not the point, Fang.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Would it be asking too much for you to explain WHY you don't think it's a valid point? Because from where I'm sitting, it's pretty hard to ignore. I can't not see what my eyes see, you know?

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