How Many Steps to Innocence??

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

You really must retake your semester statistics class again!

Everyone accepts that the owner may have transferred the touch-dna e.g. its not DNA, that can be a misleading description.

If only the owner of the touch-dna could have transferred the touch-dna then the probability it was an intruder would be 1. e.g. certainty!

But more than one person may have transferred the touch-dna e.g. there may have been multiple independent transfers of the touch-dna, but lets assume it was just one person, since that one person can be selected from quite a large population then then the probability that the touch-dna originated from the intruder starts to reduce e.g it starts falling towards 0 and away from 1.

So this little number offered by you is patently false.


Presumably your exageration was intended to bolster your IDI.

The lack of any other corroborating forensic evidence actually weakens the IDI case. One follicle of hair, a drop of saliva, a few foreign fibers discovered elsewhere at the crime-scene would increase the probability of an IDI theory.

To date there has been no credible IDI theory offered to explain the crime-scene evidence. Yet there are RDI candidates.


.

Wrong again!! There is corroborating forensic evidence to the touch DNA and this is the matching DNA found in the spot of JBR's blood in the panties. The same unidentifed males DNA found in three places on two separate items of clothing in areas related to the crime. Your statistics are meaningless in the face of this.

 

[UKGuy]

Wrong again!! There is corroborating forensic evidence to the touch DNA and this is the matching DNA found in the spot of JBR's blood in the panties. The same unidentifed males DNA found in three places on two separate items of clothing in areas related to the crime. Your statistics are meaningless in the face of this.

MurriFlower,

mmm, do your homework. It was touch-dna that was discovered in all three places. This is why it is misleading to decsribe it as DNA.

The touch-dna was found in the same vicinity e.g. her groin area, there is nothing to prevent touch-dna from falling or even being transferred again by the crime-scene stager e.g. from her longjohns onto her size-12's.

If the forensic evidence had been hair follicles, blood samples, saliva samples, urine samples, fecal samples, sweat samples, semen samples etc then a case for an IDI would be on stronger ground.


Again there is no independent corroborating evidence just the same old touch-dna found in close proximity to each other.

This touch dna may have been deposited at the autopsy!

Your claims of absolute certainty weaken your IDI case.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

mmm, do your homework. It was touch-dna that was discovered in all three places. This is why it is misleading to decsribe it as DNA.

The touch-dna was found in the same vicinity e.g. her groin area, there is nothing to prevent touch-dna from falling or even being transferred again by the crime-scene stager e.g. from her longjohns onto her size-12's.

If the forensic evidence had been hair follicles, blood samples, saliva samples, urine samples, fecal samples, sweat samples, semen samples etc then a case for an IDI would be on stronger ground.


Again there is no independent corroborating evidence just the same old touch-dna found in close proximity to each other.

This touch dna may have been deposited at the autopsy!

Your claims of absolute certainty weaken your IDI case.


.

Nope. The touch DNA technology was not available when the DNA was found in the spot of blood in the panties.

 

[UKGuy]

Nope. The touch DNA technology was not available when the DNA was found in the spot of blood in the panties.

MurriFlower,

So you do not know what you have, or do you?

Is it semen or saliva or blood etc?


Although dna might not be able to be extracted from biological material it is possible to identify the biological material e.g skin cells versus blood cells versus semen cells?

If you do not know then you cannot make claims about it with respect to an intruder.

 

[Steely]

Kicking butt and taking names, cici! That's exactly it: instead of giving simple explanations, she goes off on tangents trying to cast blame elsewhere or just digs herself deeper. CLASSIC signs of lying.



I agree with THAT!



:clap: :clap: :clap: BRAVO, cici!

I agree too! Much of PR's behavior appears to show CLASSIC signs of lying. But she seems to take it to the extreme, doesn't she? "Kicking Butt and Taking Names." Yep! But I'd like to add that within the whole phenomenon of lying there is a narrower subset of lying called pseudologia fantastica, more commonly known as pathological lying. What happens when someone with a propensity for lying as an inner dynamic has a very strong EXTERNAL reason for lying?

I've quoted some excerpts below from the article you can access here:

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/3/342

"Many articles have variously defined pseudologia fantastica, but a commonly quoted definition is that put forth by Healy and Healy8 who described it as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, manifesting over a period of years or even a lifetime, in the absence of definite insanity, feeblemindedness or epilepsy" (Ref. 8, p 1)."

"Alternatively, if it cannot be considered a clinical entity in its own right, where should pathological lying be placed under currently existing psychiatric disorders in the DSM? For example, does it meet the criteria for an Impulse Control Disorder, given the impulsive nature of the lies, or should it simply be associated with one or several of the personality disorders?"


"While no consensus definition for pathological lying currently exists in the literature, the identified functional elements of the phenomenon are: the repeated utterance of untruths; the lies are often repeated over a period of years, with the lies eventually becoming a lifestyle; material reward or social advantage does not appear to be the primary motivating force but the lying is an end in itself; an inner dynamic rather than an external reason drives the lies, but when an external reason is suspected, the lies are far in excess of the suspected external reason; the lies are often woven into complex narratives."

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

So you do not know what you have, or do you?

Is it semen or saliva or blood etc?


Although dna might not be able to be extracted from biological material it is possible to identify the biological material e.g skin cells versus blood cells versus semen cells?

If you do not know then you cannot make claims about it with respect to an intruder.

Ok, UkGuy,

Post your source for the panty DNA being touch DNA then.

 

[UKGuy]

Ok, UkGuy,

Post your source for the panty DNA being touch DNA then.

MurriFlower,
It is you that is making a claim that the underwear does not contain touch-dna , not me.

How do you know that it is not touch-dna in JonBenet's underwear?

Following the simple process of elimination e.g. the underwear touch-dna is never described as semen-dna or saliva-dna, or sweat-dna etc. To do so would incontrovertably place an intruder at the scene of the crime.

Why does Lacy or the convinced district attorney , or even the Ramsey's not tell us categorically this not touch-dna.

I'll tell you why: because its touch-dna same as that on the longjohns!

You have no sources for claims regarding an IDI theory, you have zero evidence to back up your IDI theory, that which you do has simply been invented!

Intellectually you are bankrupt, please desist from pedalling your IDI pipe dreams complete with fabricated evidence.


.
.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
It is you that is making a claim that the underwear does not contain touch-dna , not me.

How do you know that it is not touch-dna in JonBenet's underwear?

Following the simple process of elimination e.g. the underwear touch-dna is never described as semen-dna or saliva-dna, or sweat-dna etc. To do so would incontrovertably place an intruder at the scene of the crime.

Why does Lacy or the convinced district attorney , or even the Ramsey's not tell us categorically this not touch-dna.

I'll tell you why: because its touch-dna same as that on the longjohns!

You have no sources for claims regarding an IDI theory, you have zero evidence to back up your IDI theory, that which you do has simply been invented!

Intellectually you are bankrupt, please desist from pedalling your IDI pipe dreams complete with fabricated evidence.

So just explain to me what you think touch DNA is and why it is inferior to DNA from other sources?

Please desist from making statements of truth based only on your own incorrect opinion.

 

[DeeDee249]

So just explain to me what you think touch DNA is and why it is inferior to DNA from other sources?

Please desist from making statements of truth based only on your own incorrect opinion.

Touch DNA is taken from skin cells, that's why it has that designation. Is is inferior to other DNA (blood, saliva, semen, body fluids) because skin cells are so easily rubbed off and transferable. They need not belong to the person who left them there.
While it is true that other body fluids can also be transferred (blood from one person smeared on a finger of another then left in a print, semen found on a woman when women don't produce semen, etc.) touch DNA by its very nature is something that can be easily left when transferred from objects like doorknobs or hard surfaces. Skin cells are shed all day. every day, by every one of us. Other body fluids are not. Blood or semen or saliva itself would be from a primary source. Had the male DNA BEEN any of these body fluids, to me, that would place him there THAT night during the crime with JB, especially if not mixed with other DNA. There is no innocent explanation for semen on JB, nor saliva or blood in her vagina. Skin cells on her clothes and ONLY there cannot be exclusively connected to the crime.

 

[UKGuy]

Touch DNA is taken from skin cells, that's why it has that designation. Is is inferior to other DNA (blood, saliva, semen, body fluids) because skin cells are so easily rubbed off and transferable. They need not belong to the person who left them there.
While it is true that other body fluids can also be transferred (blood from one person smeared on a finger of another then left in a print, semen found on a woman when women don't produce semen, etc.) touch DNA by its very nature is something that can be easily left when transferred from objects like doorknobs or hard surfaces. Skin cells are shed all day. every day, by every one of us. Other body fluids are not. Blood or semen or saliva itself would be from a primary source. Had the male DNA BEEN any of these body fluids, to me, that would place him there THAT night during the crime with JB, especially if not mixed with other DNA. There is no innocent explanation for semen on JB, nor saliva or blood in her vagina. Skin cells on her clothes and ONLY there cannot be exclusively connected to the crime.

DeeDee249,
Thanks, nicely put, but will it register?


.

 

[MurriFlower]

Touch DNA is taken from skin cells, that's why it has that designation. Is is inferior to other DNA (blood, saliva, semen, body fluids) because skin cells are so easily rubbed off and transferable. They need not belong to the person who left them there.
While it is true that other body fluids can also be transferred (blood from one person smeared on a finger of another then left in a print, semen found on a woman when women don't produce semen, etc.) touch DNA by its very nature is something that can be easily left when transferred from objects like doorknobs or hard surfaces. Skin cells are shed all day. every day, by every one of us. Other body fluids are not. Blood or semen or saliva itself would be from a primary source. Had the male DNA BEEN any of these body fluids, to me, that would place him there THAT night during the crime with JB, especially if not mixed with other DNA. There is no innocent explanation for semen on JB, nor saliva or blood in her vagina. Skin cells on her clothes and ONLY there cannot be exclusively connected to the crime.

So, sweat is not touch DNA then? Sweat is a liquid. If this is the case, why is it they say people with sweater hands are easier to find touch DNA deposits from? Isn't all DNA obtained from cells in the body? Why do you maintain that skin cells can be transferred more easily than fluids that are by nature very sticky. How do you treat saliva that can be sneezed or spat? Is this inferior as well? Can't all DNA which is deposited in liquid form be transferred from both from one person to another also be transferred from an innocent person to an object and also from an object to an object? What about when the liquid dries and leaves a residue? Could this not be rubbed onto another surface or fall off?

I find the dismissal of the touch DNA to be a pathetic attempt to diminish it's value in order to promote the RDI theory.

 

[UKGuy]

So just explain to me what you think touch DNA is and why it is inferior to DNA from other sources?

Please desist from making statements of truth based only on your own incorrect opinion.

MurriFlower,

Its not simply inferior. Its different, and because its different you can draw different conclusions.

dna extracted from blood cells , saliva cells, semen cells etc map one to one onto the owner and in the absence of crime-scene staging place the owner at the scene of the crime.

dna extracted from skin cells lack this one-to-one mapping property since skin cells can be transferred by 2nd-parties.

So the existence of touch-dna at a crime-scene does not automatically place the owner at the scene of the crime.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Its not simply inferior. Its different, and because its different you can draw different conclusions.

dna extracted from blood cells , saliva cells, semen cells etc map one to one onto the owner and in the absence of crime-scene staging place the owner at the scene of the crime.

dna extracted from skin cells lack this one-to-one mapping property since skin cells can be transferred by 2nd-parties.

So the existence of touch-dna at a crime-scene does not automatically place the owner at the scene of the crime.

.

Please refer to my previous answer to DD.

 

[wonderllama]

Okay Murri, I just read the last few responses and they more than answer your question.

There comes a time in a line of questioning where you either accept the response or dismiss it. I suggest you're dismissing it.

Simple question...if there was no touch-DNA, would you still be supporting the IDI theory?

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay Murri, I just read the last few responses and they more than answer your question.

There comes a time in a line of questioning where you either accept the response or dismiss it. I suggest you're dismissing it.

It is not a matter of not accepting an answer given, so much as not getting an acceptible answer.

Simple question...if there was no touch-DNA, would you still be supporting the IDI theory?

Yes of course. There is still the DNA from an unidentified male found in a spot of JBR's blood in the panties. Even without that, I have not difficulty supporting IDI. Why??

Well, now we know from the DNA that a strange male touched JBR's clothing. The longjohns were scraped (on areas that an IDI would have handled them) to reveal his DNA. But as I've tried to explain to UkGuy, they did not scrape every single item of clothing, in every single place. Or indeed, every single item in the house where DNA may have been deposited. If they had the time and money to have done this, I'm confident that the "unmatched male DNA" would have been found in other places.

Further discoveries of DNA on other objects would be difficult for RDI to dismiss, given that they have committed themselves to the factory worker/parcel wrapper/door handle turner type theory to explain tertiary transfer of DNA. Still, I expect they would try and make it work.

I'm not sure we have all the information that LE has, (in fact I'm pretty certain about that) and some things may be incorrect, but what I'm finding difficult to swallow as far as RDI is concerned is their inability to explain the absence of various items and also their consistent need to draw in further 'collaborators' to explain holes in their theory.

Just as an example, the cord and tape can not be sourced to the house, nor the disappearance of the residual be explained without saying either PP, BR or PR took it with them. The RN supposedly written by PR has threats that would have allowed the Rs to confidently dispose of evidence if they chose to, but no, they just phoned 911. This makes no sense, especially as RDI believe the RN was a clever plot. Why would JR find the body at all if they were guilty? This makes no sense. There is also no reason that they would have needed to say she was asleep when they returned home nor that she did not eat the pineapple, if untrue, as it had no bearing on the crime. But to deny it, (if they were guilty) would be an unnecessary mistake.

There are numerous other clues like this that DO NOT indicate RDI, aside from the unidentified male DNA that DOES indicate IDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

It's absolutely a matter of providing an acceptable answer, and our answers met that criteria. However it is not my responsibility (or UKGuy's, if I may speak for him) to provide answers acceptable to YOU. That is not likely to be possible for any RDI anyway as far as you are concerned.
I DID state that other types of (liquid) DNA COULD also be transferred, but not as easily as skin cells. Sweat is also a body fluid, and though it does undoubtedly contain skin cells, is not shed the way skin cells are. A person doesn't even have to sweat. They don't even have to touch something. Skin cells are shed just standing there.

 

[otg]

.

Murri, your answer makes sense to me, and I appreciate your explanation. I freely admit that I don't understand all the technicalities of the DNA. I read the discussions, and try to follow along, and I tend to go with having doubts about the reliability of the touch-DNA -- but not because of any commitments to a preconceived theory. For one thing, it hasn't been around for long (~3 years I think I read), and I haven't heard of it being used to solve a crime, prove guilt, or prove innocence. So, for me anyway, the existence of, or the doubts about, the touch-DNA doesn't spell out the answer to who is responsible for JonBenet's death, or her molestation.

I do wonder though, since you seem to place all your belief on the touch-DNA as being proof of an outside intruder being the culprit, who you believed was responsible before that information came out. Were you uncommitted until that information was released, or did you think one of the Ramseys was responsible until you heard about the results of the touch-DNA testing?
.

 

[joeskidbeck]

What we should all realize is that there are some horrible implications when you put touch dna high on a list of evidence. It's quite possible that everyone here tonight has touch dna in a lot of locations right now and if a crime is committed at that location, do we really want to be the prime suspect? I think touch dna has to be tempered with good detective work and a lot of common sense.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

What we should all realize is that there are some horrible implications when you put touch dna high on a list of evidence. It's quite possible that everyone here tonight has touch dna in a lot of locations right now and if a crime is committed at that location, do we really want to be the prime suspect? I think touch dna has to be tempered with good detective work and a lot of common sense.

I so agree, Beck. I file it right in there alongside polys. Way way too many chances for a "false positive," if you will. There are reasons why polys aren't admissible in court. I see the day when touch-DNA is kept outside the courtroom as well.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri, your answer makes sense to me, and I appreciate your explanation. I freely admit that I don't understand all the technicalities of the DNA. I read the discussions, and try to follow along, and I tend to go with having doubts about the reliability of the touch-DNA -- but not because of any commitments to a preconceived theory. For one thing, it hasn't been around for long (~3 years I think I read), and I haven't heard of it being used to solve a crime, prove guilt, or prove innocence. So, for me anyway, the existence of, or the doubts about, the touch-DNA doesn't spell out the answer to who is responsible for JonBenet's death, or her molestation.
.

I think you are misunderstanding what touch DNA is. Perhaps you are reading too much into what some other posters say. DNA is found in cells from a person's body. They can be from anywhere. Because they cannot be seen with the naked eye or any device, skin cells/sweat deposited on items are difficult to find. The scraping or taping of items to remove these cells is what is new. The cells obtained in this fashion are analysed in exactly the same fashion as DNA from any other source. So when you say 'touch DNA hasn't been around long' really it is just the ability to collect these cells that is new. Skin cells obtained from the root of hair for example, is not regarded as inferior, so for RDI to maintain that skin cells collected from where a person handled an item is somehow inferior to cells in blood/semen/saliva etc is misleading. Do you agree that body fluids adhere to skin and clothes and could easily be transferred to other items? Could they also be transferred by an intermediate 'host' (person or object)? If yes, then this is no different to skin cells, hair, scabs, all have the ability to be transferred.

I do wonder though, since you seem to place all your belief on the touch-DNA as being proof of an outside intruder being the culprit, who you believed was responsible before that information came out. Were you uncommitted until that information was released, or did you think one of the Ramseys was responsible until you heard about the results of the touch-DNA testing?

I think that the DNA identified by the touch collection method (perhaps I'll use this description in future) merely confirmed the presence of an unidentified male at the crime scene. The panty DNA previously collected matched, and the degraded DNA from the fingernails was compatible, so the possibility of it being innocently placed was so unlikely to have been dismissed (not by RDI here of course) but by those who understood it's significance.

I have only been studying the case in the past year, so I've not been influenced by most of what happened previously nor of preconcieved ideas about the case or the Rs.