How Many Steps to Innocence??

[MurriFlower]

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.

Well, you DID effectively speak for UkGuy, because it was to him that I addressed my question.

I think your answer is nothing more than a futile attempt to diminish evidence for IDI. You cannot quantify what DNA is 'valuable' and what is 'inferior' based on your own conclusions.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Touch dna is just that, is it not? Skin cells that fall off and are transported by means of touch. When did it become a method of retrieving dna?

 

[wonderllama]

Why couldn't the DNA under JBR's fingernails have been the primary contact with the unknown person AWAY from the crime scene at a previous occasion? After all, they'd visited many places that day. So, during the "event", the fingernails (and foreign DNA) could come into contact with other areas?

The answer is, they could...which is why the DNA is largely unreliable as a base for the case.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Why couldn't the DNA under JBR's fingernails have been the primary contact with the unknown person AWAY from the crime scene at a previous occasion? After all, they'd visited many places that day. So, during the "event", the fingernails (and foreign DNA) could come into contact with other areas?

The answer is, they could...which is why the DNA is largely unreliable as a base for the case.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[MurriFlower]

Why couldn't the DNA under JBR's fingernails have been the primary contact with the unknown person AWAY from the crime scene at a previous occasion? After all, they'd visited many places that day. So, during the "event", the fingernails (and foreign DNA) could come into contact with other areas?

The answer is, they could...which is why the DNA is largely unreliable as a base for the case.

She didn't wear the longjohns, they were put on her before going to bed.

 

[joeskidbeck]

The only problem with them being put on her at bedtime is that means she would have had them on throughout the whole ordeal which means there would have been blood as well as urine on the longjohns. The only thing I've ever read says a small amount of urine on the front of the longjohns. Of course, Patsy may not have been telling the truth about putting them on her when she went to bed.

 

[wonderllama]

Murri....So???

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Why couldn't the DNA under JBR's fingernails have been the primary contact with the unknown person AWAY from the crime scene at a previous occasion? After all, they'd visited many places that day. So, during the "event", the fingernails (and foreign DNA) could come into contact with other areas?

The answer is, they could...which is why the DNA is largely unreliable as a base for the case.

Very true!

The dna could have got into the underwear and longjohns a number of ways.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The only problem with them being put on her at bedtime is that means she would have had them on throughout the whole ordeal which means there would have been blood as well as urine on the longjohns. The only thing I've ever read says a small amount of urine on the front of the longjohns. Of course, Patsy may not have been telling the truth about putting them on her when she went to bed.

Very true.

But the blood may not have seeped out sufficiently to cover the longjohns if she had them on during the ordeal.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

She didn't wear the longjohns, they were put on her before going to bed.

Therefore she didn't touch the waistband? To reach that conclusion, you have to accept the R's story that she was sound asleep while being changed (which they've flip-flopped on over the years). And who's to say the child didn't wake up and go tinkle? See, there are any number of ways that touch-DNA could have gotten on those longjohns.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Very true.

But the blood may not have seeped out sufficiently to cover the longjohns if she had them on during the ordeal.

Also, when you consider that the panties she wore that day were probably so messed up that they had to be exchanged for the size twelves, it would make one wonder how the longjohns stayed pretty much pristine.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Also, when you consider that the panties she wore that day were probably so messed up that they had to be exchanged for the size twelves, it would make one wonder how the longjohns stayed pretty much pristine.

Indeed.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Therefore she didn't touch the waistband? To reach that conclusion, you have to accept the R's story that she was sound asleep while being changed (which they've flip-flopped on over the years). And who's to say the child didn't wake up and go tinkle? See, there are any number of ways that touch-DNA could have gotten on those longjohns.

Right, mtm. You can't have it both ways. If the dna under her nails was the same dna on the waistband AND in her panties, we cannot rule out her transferring it herself. And there is the problem with touch dna. One can never tell how it got there as it certainly doesnt have to be by the owner.

 

[MurriFlower]

Therefore she didn't touch the waistband? To reach that conclusion, you have to accept the R's story that she was sound asleep while being changed (which they've flip-flopped on over the years). And who's to say the child didn't wake up and go tinkle? See, there are any number of ways that touch-DNA could have gotten on those longjohns.

She couldn't have woken up and gone tinkle, because if you recall, her mother beat her to death for wetting the bed!!

 

[UKGuy]

Right, mtm. You can't have it both ways. If the dna under her nails was the same dna on the waistband AND in her panties, we cannot rule out her transferring it herself. And there is the problem with touch dna. One can never tell how it got there as it certainly doesnt have to be by the owner.

joeskidbeck,

If the dna under her nails predate the autopsy then thats a different ball-game.

It would suggest that she herself is the person who transferred the touch-dna and the blood dripping onto her size-12's simply trapped a cell or two of this touch-dna after it was deposited either from under nails or from the longjohns.

.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

She couldn't have woken up and gone tinkle, because if you recall, her mother beat her to death for wetting the bed!!

Your words, not mine. That's not my theory.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Your words, not mine. That's not my theory.

Nor mine, MF.

 

[SunnieRN]

She didn't wear the longjohns, they were put on her before going to bed.

By jove, she's got it!! The long johns were put on JB by Patsy. Why didn't they talk about her touch DNA? She had to have touched the same spots as an 'intruder', since she put them on a sleeping JB.

This reminds me of the 'pubic hair' on the blanket that turned out to be an arm hair of Patsys!!

 

[Toltec]

Did they find JonBenet's DNA on the longjohns? What if it was JonBenet herself who put the longjohns on?

She had pineapple, she wet the bed, got up and changed. She put on big underwear and longjohns...something a child would do. It was Patsy herself who said that JonBenet would wet the bed, get up and change her clothes. She also said JonBenet would move to another bed when her bed was wet.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Did they find JonBenet's DNA on the longjohns? What if it was JonBenet herself who put the longjohns on?

According to the standard order of events, John put JonBenet to bed when they arrived home. Patsy then changed her into her white longjohns.

'nonfamiliar-dna' was found on the waistband of the longjohns which matched that of the underwear she was eventually found re-dressed in. This is often used to bolster the argument that an intruder was present.

But you raise a sound point -- who put the longjohns on? And why was there a distinct lack of dna from them on it?Profiler Pat Brown has asked such questions.