DNA Revisited

[BBB167893]

Simply stating that innocent transfer is more probable and realistic 'based on what we know so far' doesn't make it valid. Where's your argument?

I just told you: my argument is that when you take an holistic view of the case, when you take EVERYTHING into account, the RDI idea becomes much more likely. The DNA has to be viewed in that larger context.

Please feel free to begin describing an innocent scenario,

We've only done it a dozen times already!

because as it is now, the criminal scenario is the only existing scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations.

You yourself have admitted that.

WHOA! Exactly WHERE did I "admit" that?

 

[Tadpole12]

OK but this is a fantastic scenario. In the real world, we have 7 billion people. How many of those are in a searchable DNA database? The DNA owner is in seclusion in a foreign country mixed with about 30 million people. They don't even test for DNA and don't share criminal investigations with the US.

Its going to be a long wait.

I think what this DNA does is rules out PR and JR involvement in the crime, to everybody except those with some sort of vested interest in the outcome.

The DNA tipped the scale of justice, and this is reflected in the media coverage and the behavior of LE as a whole. About the only thing they haven't done is given JR the key to the city (which they probably should've done).

The DNA is most likely deposited criminally. This is attested to by the absense of a more probable, concise, realistic, and complete scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

So far, any scenario attempted by RDI has been nothing more than a vague high handed wave. Even if a plausible innocent DNA transfer scenario existed, no matter what the scenario was, the criminal scenario is still going to be more likely.

Hi Hotyh.

JMK resurfacing brings news of the Ramseys` innocence, the `hell they went through`, finally exhonerated by new dna techniques.

The dna ..... what are the odds that it could be proven unrelated.
RDI has become deflated, a conspiracy theory, of sorts.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI has become deflated, a conspiracy theory, of sorts.

Excuse me?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Simply stating that innocent transfer is more probable and realistic 'based on what we know so far' doesn't make it valid. Where's your argument?

Please feel free to begin describing an innocent scenario, because as it is now, the criminal scenario is the only existing scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations.

You yourself have admitted that.

WHOA! Exactly WHERE did I "admit" that?

Right here is where you admit there exists no scenario that places the DNA innocently:

The DNA is most likely deposited criminally. This is attested to by the absense of a more probable, concise, realistic, and complete scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

I'd agree that there is an absence of one SO FAR, but only because there are so many possibilities that it's hard to know where to begin.

Feel free to begin because you're needing one to maintain your position. I suggest the most concise, probable, realistic, and complete one that you can think of, that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

 

[Tadpole12]

Excuse me?

Hey SD.

conspiracy theory:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory[/ame]

Perhaps not the right term, it has that perjorative sense.
Although it does have a neutral sense, `The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.`

 

[BBB167893]

Right here is where you admit there exists no scenario that places the DNA innocently:

Sorry, I did not phrase that well. I didn't mean that there is no scenario. I believe there is. I simply meant that I haven't figured out how to put it down yet.

Feel free to begin because you're needing one to maintain your position.

I know what my position needs, thank you.

I suggest the most concise, probable, realistic, and complete one that you can think of, that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

Your suggestion is appreciated, but I would have done that anyway.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey SD.

Yo!

conspiracy theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Perhaps not the right term, it has that perjorative sense.
Although it does have a neutral sense, `The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.`

I'm sure some would like to define it that way. I certainly wouldn't.

I don't see it as a conspiracy; rather as a combination of general incompetence, ego-trip pileups and far too many people being given far too much power with far too little wisdom.

In fact, the closest I've ever come is when I was talking about the book to my boss, who might know a good publisher. She asked me why this one case was so important to me, especially when other children have been killed in worse ways. All I could say was, "yes, other children have been killed in worse ways. But this is the only time I can think of where the political structure of a town closed ranks to protect a child-killer." And even then, my meaning was not that they were intentionally protecting a child-killer so much as they were acting in their own petty interests. Specifically, preserving the town's utopian image became more important than justice for an innocent victim. Thus, the killer could not be a prominent citizen of "our town." It had to be someone from "outside."

A while back in regard to this case, I mentioned George Orwell's 1984. In that famous novel, a fascist government strictly controls its citizenry through relentless propaganda, ruthlessly enforcing a herd-mentality. Language has no objective meaning, thus there is no objective truth. "Truth" is what the gov't says it is. Well, that's what Boulder's establishment reminded me of.

 

[WHITEFANG]

In fact, the closest I've ever come is when I was talking about the book to my boss, who might know a good publisher. She asked me why this one case was so important to me, especially when other children have been killed in worse ways. All I could say was, "yes, other children have been killed in worse ways. But this is the only time I can think of where the political structure of a town closed ranks to protect a child-killer." And even then, my meaning was not that they were intentionally protecting a child-killer so much as they were acting in their own petty interests. Specifically, preserving the town's utopian image became more important than justice for an innocent victim. Thus, the killer could not be a prominent citizen of "our town." It had to be someone from "outside."



woe nelly!

utopian riots, crime, college students out of control, say what? boulder?

 

[BBB167893]

woe nelly!

utopian riots, crime, college students out of control, say what? boulder?

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.

 

[OneLove]

Okay, I'm going to ask a question that REALLY shows my ignorance. On the DNA evidence, I read a good while ago that the unworn and brandnew panties still in the opened package were tested and found to also have male DNA on them, every single one of them. It was conjectured that they most likely (notice that I did NOTsay "must have") come from a person at the manufacturing plant who inspected or packed them. I recently tried finding this again with no luck. Can anyone address this? Was it completely bunked or did I dream this? TIA

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, I'm going to ask a question that REALLY shows my ignorance. On the DNA evidence, I read a good while ago that the unworn and brandnew panties still in the opened package were tested and found to also have male DNA on them, every single one of them. It was conjectured that they most likely (notice that I did NOTsay "must have") come from a person at the manufacturing plant who inspected or packed them. I recently tried finding this again with no luck. Can anyone address this? Was it completely bunked or did I dream this? TIA

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

 

[cynic]

So far, any scenario attempted by RDI has been nothing more than a vague high handed wave. Even if a plausible innocent DNA transfer scenario existed, no matter what the scenario was, the criminal scenario is still going to be more likely.

I can equally say, so far, any scenario attempted by IDI has been nothing more than a vague high handed wave. Even if a plausible innocent fiber transfer scenario existed, no matter what the scenario was, the criminal scenario is still going to be more likely

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.
Additionally, fibers consistent with JR’s shirt were found in the crotch area of JBR.
Unknown male DNA was not found anywhere on her body despite the fact that pelvic area swabs were taken into evidence.
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.

The DNA is most likely deposited criminally. This is attested to by the absence of a more probable, concise, realistic, and complete scenario that places this exact DNA in these exact locations innocently.

With respect to “innocent” transfer of DNA, it is difficult to speculate on a precise “screenplay” outlining the minutia of transfer because in order to do that we have to assume that that the two primary suspects in this case are telling the truth about a number of very important elements, including, but not limited to what was worn by JBR, and when. Given the number of “irregularities” in their Interviews with LE, I am less than confident that they were telling the truth in many instances.
Therefore:
We do not know whether the long johns were freshly laundered or if JBR was wearing them earlier in the day.
We do not know if the long johns were perhaps worn temporarily by a male playmate of JBR’s, in the day(s) prior to her death.
We do not know if the” Wednesday” underwear was worn earlier, perhaps before going to sleep, possibly over “pull-ups.”
We do not know if JBR was asleep upon returning home from the Whites, perhaps she was awake and played for a while, possibly sharing a pineapple snack with BR prior to going to bed. If she was awake, wearing the articles of clothing where DNA was found, she may very well have been responsible for the transfer herself.
If she was asleep, and was redressed with freshly laundered long johns and brand new panties, PR may have been responsible for “innocent” transfer of DNA.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that contamination may have occurred during the collection of the articles of clothing. The clothing items in question may have been handled without gloves. Or, the items may have been handled with gloves, but unmasked. A simple conversation may have contaminated the evidence. The following shows that it has happened in the past.
In the late '80s to mid-'90s, the early days of DNA "fingerprinting," it was a lot harder for forensic scientists to contaminate the tests.
A decade ago, DNA tests needed a quarter-size stain of blood or semen to produce a strong match and took about six weeks to complete. Today, the lab needs only about 40 human cells, invisible to the naked eye, to produce a DNA profile using an extremely sensitive method called "polymerase chain-reaction," or PCR.
With PCR tests, DNA is extracted from a sample, mixed with special chemicals and put into computerized machines that make thousands of copies of the DNA. The process takes days instead of weeks.
But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence
DNA analysts are now required to use a Plexiglas screen, wear a mask or refrain from talking while testing DNA, Shutler said.

The occasional "contamination event" is inevitable, said Blake, the California scientist, but crime labs aren't routinely disclosing those miscues.
"We have a duty to tell people about that," he said.
Many crime labs are "stunningly ignorant: about contamination, said Janine Arvizu, an Albuquerque-based forensic scientist who has audited federal and private industry labs.
"I wish they'd step up and say, 'We need help cleaning it up,' " Arvizu said. "But they won't. It's pretty scary."
The number of incidents at the State Patrol labs, she said, indicates a "significant contamination problem."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

 

[cynic]

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

Yes, it was an excellent demonstration of the sensitivity of present day DNA testing.

 

[cynic]

I just told you: my argument is that when you take an holistic view of the case, when you take EVERYTHING into account, the RDI idea becomes much more likely. The DNA has to be viewed in that larger context.

Absolutely, DNA is one piece of the puzzle, not the only piece of the puzzle.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

With respect to “innocent” transfer of DNA, it is difficult to speculate on a precise “screenplay”

Ahem...

 

[cynic]

Ahem...

Context please.
With respect to “innocent” transfer of DNA, it is difficult to speculate on a precise “screenplay” outlining the minutia of transfer because in order to do that we have to assume that that the two primary suspects in this case are telling the truth about a number of very important elements, including, but not limited to what was worn by JBR, and when. Given the number of “irregularities” in their Interviews with LE, I am less than confident that they were telling the truth in many instances.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Context please.
With respect to “innocent” transfer of DNA, it is difficult to speculate on a precise “screenplay” outlining the minutia of transfer because in order to do that we have to assume that that the two primary suspects in this case are telling the truth about a number of very important elements, including, but not limited to what was worn by JBR, and when. Given the number of “irregularities” in their Interviews with LE, I am less than confident that they were telling the truth in many instances.

Please provide the most likely scenario whereby DNA from an unknown male is deposited within a blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBRs underwear, AND non-persistent genetic material from the same unknown male is deposited in two (2) locations on each side of the waistband of longjohns, both items known to be worn at the time of the murder.

 

[cynic]

Please provide the most likely scenario whereby DNA from an unknown male is deposited within a blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBRs underwear, AND non-persistent genetic material from the same unknown male is deposited in two (2) locations on each side of the waistband of longjohns, both items known to be worn at the time of the murder.

I believe I did. JBR, if she was wearing the clothing and was awake, or PR, if redressing was involved and JBR did not wake up, prior to her death.
That is in terms of secondary transfer. I don't rule out contamination, which I also outlined.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Please provide the most likely scenario whereby DNA from an unknown male is deposited within a blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBRs underwear, AND non-persistent genetic material from the same unknown male is deposited in two (2) locations on each side of the waistband of longjohns, both items known to be worn at the time of the murder.

I believe I did. JBR, if she was wearing the clothing and was awake, or PR, if redressing was involved and JBR did not wake up, prior to her death.
That is in terms of secondary transfer. I don't rule out contamination, which I also outlined.

I'm sorry there is no scenario here.

How did DNA get deposited? By air, hand, mouth, foot, ear, what? Power of suggestion? Oh, I know, it was telekenesis, right?

 

[cynic]

I'm sorry there is no scenario here.

How did DNA get deposited? By air, hand, mouth, foot, ear, what? Power of suggestion? Oh, I know, it was telekenesis, right?

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.
Additionally, fibers consistent with JR’s shirt were found in the crotch area of JBR.
Unknown male DNA was not found anywhere on her body despite the fact that pelvic area swabs were taken into evidence.
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.