DNA Revisited

[Holdontoyourhat]

Highly unlikely, bordering on impossible.

Your statement contradicts the Bode website, where they explain that skin cell DNA has to be present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile.

JBR, PR, or JR would have to actually touch the waistband to create a touch DNA profile. You seem to be simply assuming that JBR, PR, or JR touched the waistband and produced a profile that was then ignored.

This is obviously a high assumption on your part.

I doubt this to be the case, as JR or PR touch DNA found in these locations would add to the case against them, and further the case whereby JR and PR had an accomplice.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

Unsourced stories are junk. The 'filtering out of assumed-to-be-innocent DNA' is a myth.

Touch DNA present in quantities enough to produce a profile will produce a profile. There was no 'filtering of friendlies'.

 

[BBB167893]

Unsourced stories are junk. The 'filtering out of assumed-to-be-innocent DNA' is a myth.

HOTYH, I know what I saw and heard, okay?

 

[DeeDee249]

I am wondering why Patsy's DNA is not on the longjohns. She has admitted putting them on JB.
And I also am wondering if any of the male children party guests were matched to the unknown DNA. The male DNA cannot be presumed to be from an adult male until the donor is found, and known to have been an adult male at the time it was left.
My thinking is the male party guests and the male children who the Rs have said visited BR at home Christmas Day before they went to the White's (these boys should also be tested) should be matched against the male DNA.
These boys are now men. And they can't be required to gives samples. But they should.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, I know what I saw and heard, okay?

I believe there was no such story.

 

[BBB167893]

I believe there was no such story.

A man could take offense to that, pilgrim. Could get the feeling he was being called a liar.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey Hotyh.

Would Bode Tech respond to an e-mail inquiry on the matter of touch dna amplification?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hey Hotyh.

Would Bode Tech respond to an e-mail inquiry on the matter of touch dna amplification?

The idea that Bode would knowingly allow the DA to draw an incorrect conclusion from the test results...

I don't need an e-mail, because the rationale is clear. The unknown male DNA deposited in three (3) separate places on two (2) items of clothing that are factually known to have been handled by a criminal that evening.

Still it would be interesting to hear their take on PR, JR, and JBR DNA. Based on their web site, the only way DNA from these three would be detected is if they touched the fabric in the areas that were tested.

I think the idea that they plugged in a DNA value and then searched for it, filtering out 'innocent' DNA, is bogus propaganda.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey Hotyh.

Would Bode Tech respond to an e-mail inquiry on the matter of touch dna amplification?

There's one way to find out, isn't there?

 

[BBB167893]

The idea that Bode would knowingly allow the DA to draw an incorrect conclusion from the test results...

Who says they DID? I'm convinced they were just doing their jobs, the way they described it on CNN, mind you. ML didn't NEED anyone's help to run with the Idiot Ball.

Still it would be interesting to hear their take on PR, JR, and JBR DNA. Based on their web site, the only way DNA from these three would be detected is if they touched the fabric in the areas that were tested.

Well, now my interest is piqued.

I think the idea that they plugged in a DNA value and then searched for it, filtering out 'innocent' DNA, is bogus propaganda.

I know what I saw and heard, brother.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I am wondering why Patsy's DNA is not on the longjohns. She has admitted putting them on JB.

Touching something doesn't automatically leave DNA material on it.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I meant that you had to take into account the psychological factors. You make it sound like the first choice (report an accident and deny culpability in prior abuse) was so darned easy. Just WHAT were they going to say? Who were they going to try and stick THAT on? I'm legit in asking those questions.

The Super


Sup, since that question wouldn't be as easy to answer as we might think, naturally they considered other possibilities. Given that they may not have been thinking too clearly, they decided their best option would be to leave the scene looking like this,

Autopsy photos show the ligature was tightened deeply into her neck. "That was brutally, forcibly, deeply dug into the furrows of her neck. This was not an easy strangulation. This was a brutal strangulation.

 

[BBB167893]

I meant that you had to take into account the psychological factors. You make it sound like the first choice (report an accident and deny culpability in prior abuse) was so darned easy. Just WHAT were they going to say? Who were they going to try and stick THAT on? I'm legit in asking those questions.
--The Super

That's me, all right.

Sup, since that question wouldn't be as easy to answer as we might think, naturally they considered other possibilities. Given that they may not have been thinking too clearly, they decided their best option would be to leave the scene looking like this,

Autopsy photos show the ligature was tightened deeply into her neck. "That was brutally, forcibly, deeply dug into the furrows of her neck. This was not an easy strangulation. This was a brutal strangulation".

I honestly don't see what about my viewpoint is so hard to understand.

 

[WHITEFANG]

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.

LHP took Pat's paint tote downstairs to the basement just before Joni was murdered.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Touching something doesn't automatically leave DNA material on it.

However, if DNA is present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile using touch DNA methods, its very likely because it was touched by the DNA owner.

The idea that someone can transfer someone else's DNA in sufficient quantity to produce a separate profile, and yet without depositing their own DNA, is no less than what RDI proposes. RDI bogus propaganda at best. I hope that by now that calmer cooler reasoning prevails within LE, and this idea isn't seriously considered even for a minute.

 

[WHITEFANG]

That's me, all right.


I honestly don't see what about my viewpoint is so hard to understand.

Perhaps this is where we part, where we must part. Whatever other choices they may have had, from your perspective, we should be able to understand why they chose the one did. If we put forth a little effort, we'll get it.
What we consider to be a reprehensible, hideous, immoral, objectionable "non-choice," is easily dismissed if we would just accept what you believe the Ramsey's decided they must do. That is to say, just yank the killing cord hard enough to make it look realistic?
Thanks anyway.

 

[WHITEFANG]

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.

Does anyone know what the value of DNA is statistically?

 

[DeeDee249]

LHP took Pat's paint tote downstairs to the basement just before Joni was murdered.

Actually, both Patsy and LHP say that Patsy asked her to take it down to the basement when LHP was there to clean before the R's party on Dec. 23. Patsy said she kept the paint tote in the butler's pantry, and she wanted the area cleared to put in a portable coat rack for party guests.

 

[BBB167893]

LHP took Pat's paint tote downstairs to the basement just before Joni was murdered.

I wonder how reliable her memory is.

 

[BBB167893]

Perhaps this is where we part, where we must part.

Maybe that was inevitable. I'll be honest, Fang; I don't think you did me justice because I don't think it was as LS categorizes. He has a habit of coming up with things on his own that aren't supported by expert opinion (and believe me, that's the nicest way I can put that).

Whatever other choices they may have had, from your perspective, we should be able to understand why they chose the one they did. If we put forth a little effort, we'll get it.

Something like that, yeah. In fact, I'm somewhat grateful to you for putting it like that.

What we consider to be a reprehensible, hideous, immoral, objectionable "non-choice," is easily dismissed if we would just accept what you believe the Ramseys decided they must do. That is to say, just yank the killing cord hard enough to make it look realistic?

I don't quite like how you characterized that, Fang. I'm not asking anyone to "just accept" what I believe. Far from it. I'm asking people to understand WHY I believe it and I'm confident that they'll accept it on their own. Why? Because that's what happened to me. I didn't go from hardline IDI to hardline RDI for nothing.

Thanks anyway.

What is that supposed to mean?