Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Anti-K]

Just keep pushing.



You're describing yourself, IMO.



In case you've forgotten, Anti-K, Henry Lee said that in fully HALF the cases where DNA is found, it's irrelevant to the case. And that was back in the days when you actually needed a fairly good-sized sample to do analysis. I don't even want to THINK about how much irrelevant DNA is being and will be found as these detection methods continue



Apparently they do, even though they shouldn't.

As I’ve said, I’m not overly impressed by Lee.

I’m sure that DNA is often (in some sense) irrelevant to a case, But, this is a rather blanket statement and it doesn’t really tell us much about this case. I think that is this case, some of the DNA is irrelevant but some of it is not.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You mean like how when the experts say the head blow was 45-120 minutes before the strangulation? THAT kind of rejection?

In all seriousness, Anti-K, you ALMOST have it right. Except that it's not a question of fitting with "theories," it's a question of fitting with the other evidence.

I think that expert opinion on the time between head blow and asphyxiation is varied and uncertain. Even going with the 45 to 120 minutes – that’s quite the range.

The same Lee that you quoted on the DNA had this to say, “...a very powerful blow to the head... ...would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty...”

I can’t speak for others, but I haven’t rejected any of the expert opinion on this matter. I’m not sure that we’ve had a definitive opinion.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

As I’ve said, I’m not overly impressed by Lee.

I’m sure that DNA is often (in some sense) irrelevant to a case, But, this is a rather blanket statement and it doesn’t really tell us much about this case. I think that is this case, some of the DNA is irrelevant but some of it is not.

Maybe we're getting somewhere. A blanket statement? Maybe, but not out of nowhere. Especially in this case, where so many other DNA samples were found.

 

[BBB167893]

I think that expert opinion on the time between head blow and asphyxiation is varied and uncertain. Even going with the 45 to 120 minutes – that’s quite the range.

Well, as I've pointed out before, Anti-K, head wounds are perhaps the quirkiest injuries a person can sustain. One has to allow for that.

The same Lee that you quoted on the DNA had this to say, “...a very powerful blow to the head... ...would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty...”

Aren't you the man who emphasizes the word "probably?" "Scientific certainty" or not, that is what the specialists would say in court.

I can’t speak for others, but I haven’t rejected any of the expert opinion on this matter. I’m not sure that we’ve had a definitive opinion.

I have to admit, that statement intrigues me greatly. Go on.

Speaking for myself, I tend to abide by the words of the late, great Bruce Lee: "absorb what is useful."

 

[Anti-K]

Well, as I've pointed out before, Anti-K, head wounds are perhaps the quirkiest injuries a person can sustain. One has to allow for that.



Aren't you the man who emphasizes the word "probably?" "Scientific certainty" or not, that is what the specialists would say in court.



I have to admit, that statement intrigues me greatly. Go on.

Speaking for myself, I tend to abide by the words of the late, great Bruce Lee: "absorb what is useful."

“[H]ead wounds are perhaps the quirkiest injuries a person can sustain.” Yes, and add to that the asphyxiation and things become complicated indeed. This is why we have such diverse expert opinion and why we have people like Lee saying that “in all probability” the head blow came first. But, we don’t need expert opinion to tell us this. We already know it because the head bow was struck while the victim was alive and she was asphyxiated to death.

But, maybe I’m wrong about that because, iirc, Wecht and Doberson said that the blow likely came after death. Somewhere in there is the possibility that the head blow and the asphyxiation were concurrent.

I have no opinion. I’m on the fence. I’m waiting for further developments.
.

Absorb what is useful. That’s nice. The trick is in determining what is useful.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

You're saying the scientific analysis of the evidence doesn't fit your theory, so you don't accept the evidence. This is where we differ.

Whatever my reason for saying does not change that the test result could be flawed givin the origin of the sample and the limitations of the test.

You're saying the scientific analysis of the evidence doesn't fit your theory

To tell you the truth, I don't believe the fact that one of the Ramseys killed Jonbenet is a theory. To most people who know anything about this case, that is a fact. And in this case, where high powered attorneys have turned innocuous DNA in to the most defining aspect of this case, it has to be looked at with very discriminating eyes.

 

[Tawny]

Saliva actually makes sense in my theory of what happened, so yeah. It's just such a bad DNA sample (being MIXED with JBR's blood, which would corrupt the sample), it doesn't match the person it belongs to.

 

[allysasaurus]

It makes me sad to see sleuthers goin at it and getting upset with eachother. Just agree to disagree.
This thread is about the stungun, right? I just spent 30 min reading thru a vaginal swab debate hoping to get a tiny sliver of stungun info.

For what its worth..... the marks on her face are so ugly..... not like a bruise or "abrasion". To me it looks like a burn... an ugly as hell burn. I should google cigarette burns.... either pre or post mortem. Thinking outloud...
I cross referenced patsys rings as well.
Id believe that if her rings were glowing red hot embers. Ha.
Patsy mentions "smoking until they find the killer" in DOI. And then later in the same breath says she decided to stop because she realized she wasnt hurting the media and such, only herself.
Saliva would be on a cigarette butt. And sometimes the smokers fingers if say, they take a drag after licking their lips.

Im a smoker and of course ive burned myself on accident. They are perfectly round burns....
Any thoughts?

 

[allysasaurus]

This is obviously on a living
person but it looks pretty close to me.

 

[andreww]

“Generally, amylase found in other body fluids will not be present in sufficient quantity for detection by the Phadebas method.
<snip>
“In-house testing at several independent forensic laboratories has determined that no other forensically relevant body fluid (sweat, semen and vaginal secretion) will react within 10 minutes using the current protocol, even after repeated deposition.” http://www.phadebas.com/areas-of-use/forensic-biology
...

AK

Good information, but was the "current protocol" in effect almost 20 years ago when this test was done? It seems like what this quote is saying is that previous iterations of the test had problems distinguishing between saliva and vaginal fluids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I think there&#8217;s more to it than that. An expert says that the sample is saliva, but that opinion doesn&#8217;t fit with theory so it is rejected, BUT, if an expert said that Mrs Ramsey probably wrote the note and that opinion would be gold. All of a sudden, probably means something.
...

AK

That is not the case at all. You keep saying "An expert says that the sample is saliva" which is simply not true. An expert said it MIGHT be saliva, which is open to interpretation. Making statements like that can be harmful in a case like this because we see how quickly an experts comment that "it might be saliva" turns in to "it is saliva". Then the debate becomes "how does an intruders skin AND saliva get in to the panties of a dead girl?". Then, the Ramseys probably didn't do this because there is a strangers saliva in her panties.

Again, I go back to the Bernardo case. Investigators were certain that the suspect drove a gold Camaro. They publicized it and did a province wide check of all owners of gold Camaros. When the evidence pointed to Bernardo, he did not own a gold Camaro. Did they they drop Bernardo as a suspect because the evidence didn't fit? Of course not. The evidence was simply incorrect.

Once a case is solved you can always look back at it and say this or that piece of evidence is either wrong or insignificant. In the case of Jonbenet I personally feel that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that one of the three people in that house killed her. Not so much based on physical evidence, but based on inconsistancies of their statements, and their actions after the crime. I'm not saying that this is enough to put them in front of a judge, but I do feel very strongly that at least one of the parents is guilty and that the other parent assisted in coverup. From this viewpoint I can look at each piece of evidence a little differently. Should it be there? Why is it there? How did it get there? In my opinion the saliva probably isn't there because there was no intruder there to deposit it. I believe that the commingled sample is probably JBs blood and skin cells that flashed blue because of the presence of vaginal fluid. From what I can tell, the Phadebas tests cannot definitively say which component of a commingled sample is causing the blue flash either. Its a simple test, and basically a piece of paper turns blue indicating the presence of amylase. Any conclusions based on that blue flash need to take in to account where the sample came from.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

That is not the case at all. You keep saying "An expert says that the sample is saliva" which is simply not true. An expert said it MIGHT be saliva, which is open to interpretation. Making statements like that can be harmful in a case like this because we see how quickly an experts comment that "it might be saliva" turns in to "it is saliva". Then the debate becomes "how does an intruders skin AND saliva get in to the panties of a dead girl?". Then, the Ramseys probably didn't do this because there is a strangers saliva in her panties.

Again, I go back to the Bernardo case. Investigators were certain that the suspect drove a gold Camaro. They publicized it and did a province wide check of all owners of gold Camaros. When the evidence pointed to Bernardo, he did not own a gold Camaro. Did they they drop Bernardo as a suspect because the evidence didn't fit? Of course not. The evidence was simply incorrect.

Once a case is solved you can always look back at it and say this or that piece of evidence is either wrong or insignificant. In the case of Jonbenet I personally feel that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that one of the three people in that house killed her. Not so much based on physical evidence, but based on inconsistancies of their statements, and their actions after the crime. I'm not saying that this is enough to put them in front of a judge, but I do feel very strongly that at least one of the parents is guilty and that the other parent assisted in coverup. From this viewpoint I can look at each piece of evidence a little differently. Should it be there? Why is it there? How did it get there? In my opinion the saliva probably isn't there because there was no intruder there to deposit it. I believe that the commingled sample is probably JBs blood and skin cells that flashed blue because of the presence of vaginal fluid. From what I can tell, the Phadebas tests cannot definitively say which component of a commingled sample is causing the blue flash either. Its a simple test, and basically a piece of paper turns blue indicating the presence of amylase. Any conclusions based on that blue flash need to take in to account where the sample came from.

No, Andreww, I keep saying that the sample was PROBABLY saliva. The quote you used here was to someone else and was a comment made in general about how theory seems to determine how expert opinions are interpreted; but &#8211; yes &#8211; I did say IS in that quote. Sorry for the confusion, I&#8217;ll take the blame for that one. The sample PROBABLY is saliva.
.

However, your explanation here actually supports exactly what I (and Mama2JML) are saying: theory is being used to determine the meaning and value of evidence. I&#8217;ll quote from your post:
&#8220;... but I do feel very strongly that at least one of the parents is guilty and that the other parent assisted in coverup. From this viewpoint I can look at each piece of evidence a little differently.&#8221;

This is using theory to determine the meaning and value of evidence. The expert opinion that the sample is PROBABLY saliva doesn&#8217;t fit your theory, so you reject it.

Also, you wrote, &#8220;In my opinion the saliva probably isn't there because there was no intruder there to deposit it.&#8221; This, too, is theory being used to determine the meaning and value of evidence.
.

I don&#8217;t know that the commingled sample was tested. If you read, for example Kolar, it is the Distal Stain 007-2 that was tested, the male component that was separated from the female. This means no vaginal secretions (if there were any to begin with). Regardless, as previously quoted (by me): &#8220;Generally, amylase found in other body fluids will not be present in sufficient quantity for detection by the Phadebas method.&#8221;

So., sorry, there just isn&#8217;t an argument for you to make here. It&#8217;s just your opinion and it is an opinion contradicted by what is known.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

Is the Distal Stain 007-2 from the interior of the panties or the waistband of the long johns?

I feel like we keep jumping between the two, and it's confusing.

 

[Anti-K]

Is the Distal Stain 007-2 from the interior of the panties or the waistband of the long johns?

I feel like we keep jumping between the two, and it's confusing.

Distal Stain 007- 2 is the male component separated from the female. It is the sample accepted by CODIS. It was from the inside crotch of the panties.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

BBM


No, Andreww, I keep saying that the sample was PROBABLY saliva. The quote you used here was to someone else and was a comment made in general about how theory seems to determine how expert opinions are interpreted; but – yes – I did say IS in that quote. Sorry for the confusion, I’ll take the blame for that one. The sample PROBABLY is saliva.
.

However, your explanation here actually supports exactly what I (and Mama2JML) are saying: theory is being used to determine the meaning and value of evidence. I’ll quote from your post:
“... but I do feel very strongly that at least one of the parents is guilty and that the other parent assisted in coverup. From this viewpoint I can look at each piece of evidence a little differently.”

This is using theory to determine the meaning and value of evidence. The expert opinion that the sample is PROBABLY saliva doesn’t fit your theory, so you reject it.

Also, you wrote, “In my opinion the saliva probably isn't there because there was no intruder there to deposit it.” This, too, is theory being used to determine the meaning and value of evidence.
.

I don’t know that the commingled sample was tested. If you read, for example Kolar, it is the Distal Stain 007-2 that was tested, the male component that was separated from the female. This means no vaginal secretions (if there were any to begin with). Regardless, as previously quoted (by me): “Generally, amylase found in other body fluids will not be present in sufficient quantity for detection by the Phadebas method.”

So., sorry, there just isn’t an argument for you to make here. It’s just your opinion and it is an opinion contradicted by what is known.
...

AK

I don't believe it would be possible to do a Phadebas test on only the male component. The illustrated explanation of how the test is done is very straight forward and shows the paper being placed over a stain. The paper is treated and a blue mark will only show in the area of the stain.

As to other fluids flashing blue, you are still referring to the current protocol of the test, and I ask again, was that protocol in effect almost 20 years ago?

And your admonishing me for quoting what you said? You said it. You've said it a few times in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

BBM


However, your explanation here actually supports exactly what I (and Mama2JML) are saying: theory is being used to determine the meaning and value of evidence. I&#8217;ll quote from your post:
&#8220;... but I do feel very strongly that at least one of the parents is guilty and that the other parent assisted in coverup. From this viewpoint I can look at each piece of evidence a little differently.&#8221;

This is using theory to determine the meaning and value of evidence. The expert opinion that the sample is PROBABLY saliva doesn&#8217;t fit your theory, so you reject it.

AK

So tell me, in the Paul Bernardo case that I cited, how does LE eventually arrest Bernardo despite the fact that he didn't own a gold Camaro? At a certain point LE would have had to reject that piece of evidence as being inaccurate because other evidence pointed to Bernardo being the perp. So yes it is quite acceptable to throw away evidence that is based on opinion to fit a theory, so long as the other evidence points to your suspect.

 

[Anti-K]

I don't believe it would be possible to do a Phadebas test on only the male component. The illustrated explanation of how the test is done is very straight forward and shows the paper being placed over a stain. The paper is treated and a blue mark will only show in the area of the stain.

As to other fluids flashing blue, you are still referring to the current protocol of the test, and I ask again, was that protocol in effect almost 20 years ago?

And your admonishing me for quoting what you said? You said it. You've said it a few times in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Admonishment? I don&#8217;t think that happened. In fact, I took blame for the confusion and apologized for it.

A quick scan shows 15 uses of PROBABLY is saliva, over 8 or 9 posts on this thread alone. So, I think you&#8217;re mistaken when you say that I&#8217;ve been saying IS saliva.

Kolar is the one saying that Distal Stain 007-2 (the male component) flashed blue. P. 303 &#8211; 304.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Admonishment? I don’t think that happened. In fact, I took blame for the confusion and apologized for it.

A quick scan shows 15 uses of PROBABLY is saliva, over 8 or 9 posts on this thread alone. So, I think you’re mistaken when you say that I’ve been saying IS saliva.

Kolar is the one saying that Distal Stain 007-2 (the male component) flashed blue. P. 303 – 304.
...

AK

Either you are misunderstanding his statement or he misspoke. From my understanding of how that test is conducted, there would be no way they could isolate the results of a commingled sample.

Bottom line is that nobody can say with 100% certainty that the stain was saliva right? That's all I need the jury to hear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dogperson]

James Kolar believes the mark was from a piece of the train tracks but won't explain the purpose of it or how it happened. Does anyone have an idea how the track fits in?

 

[Anti-K]

Either you are misunderstanding his statement or he misspoke. From my understanding of how that test is conducted, there would be no way they could isolate the results of a commingled sample.

Bottom line is that nobody can say with 100% certainty that the stain was saliva right? That's all I need the jury to hear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not mistaken, and I will add Kolar&#8217;s comments to the bottom of this post.

Kolar may be mistaken. It would not be the first time.

You&#8217;re right, nobody can say with 100% certainty that the stain was saliva. The test does not allow for that, it is presumptive only. They can only say that it PROBABLY is saliva.

Kolar; p. 304:
I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity consisting of only approximately 1/2 a nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100-150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

DNA samples generally consist of 13 Core loci markers, so it is important to note that Distal Stain 007-2 is not a full sample of DNA, and the FBI requires at least 10 markers be identified before an unknown sample can be entered into the national CODIS database.
Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI's initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present.
...

AK