IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, can you tell where you got the details about the DNA?

I sure can. Back when the DNA was submitted to CODIS, a big deal was made of how the DA had to fight to get it submitted because it didn't possess the required 13 markers. This is what the Daily Camera said about it as recently as 2006:

"A second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined."

It helps to remember that a LOT of law enforcement professionals actively discourage the use of partial DNA profiles. That's one big reason for the 13-marker minimum.

Also, if the DNA is degraded, does it mean it can not be matched to the touch DNA?

Ah, the question I've been waiting to hear.

A few things to keep in mind: generally speaking, LE is divided into two groups on DNA: first are those who believe that it's the end-all, be-all of crime investigation and that it, above all other things, should be focused on and developed strenuously; for the sake of argument, we will refer to these people as developists. They are the new school.

Then, there are those who view DNA as an extremely important hammer in the toolbox of law enforcement, but realize that it does have limitations and that building a strong overall case should come first. These are the old school people, who we will refer to as constructionists. This is the camp into which I fall very firmly.

An even better illustration is this: 40 years ago, DNA testing methods and many other modern forensics did not exist. Cops and prosecutors had to rely more on effort, intelligence and guts to make cases: running down leads, interviewing suspects right off, etc. And they did it pretty well, all things considered. The mantra back then was "if you don't solve it in 48 hours, you might never solve it."

Now, we have all of these testing methods, and people have fallen into the trap that science is infallible and they don't need the old techniques anymore. Well, one of my main themes in my times at WS has been that LE needs to re-embrace the old techniques alongside the new ones.

Let's apply that to your question: assuming that the touch DNA is not degraded (and as I pointed out to HOTYH, I can't say one way on another), as a constructionist, I would be EXTREMELY hesitant to call ANYTHING regarding a partial profile as a match.

Where did Mary Lacy get the idea that the DNAs are a match, I assume it could not have been just her fabrication.

That's an interesting one. I'm not comfortable with the word "fabrication." I think it's more a case of several factors:

1) Mary Lacy's general lack of prosecuting experience leading to a misunderstanding of how forensics are supposed to work;

2) ML seems to be firmly in the "new school" camp. In fact, she seemed to be actively hostile to older investigative methods (as Tom Haney found out);

3) It's been said by many people (mostly those who worked with her), that ML had a feminist agenda during her career and that it informed a lot of her decisions. This has led many (including myself) to wonder just what her goal was here.

So, as to how she could have gotten that idea: at best, she possessed a misunderstanding of forensic application. At worst, she had an agenda, and deliberately misunderstood it. Madeleine outlined the choices in another post elsewhere.

Phew! Sorry to run so long, Mysteeri. I'm sure you didn't expect me to talk so much, but I had a lot to say.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI will ask you to believe ML planted the DNA, tested it, and printed the news all by herself.

Would it be asking too much if we could keep this on a serious level?

 

[DeeDee249]

ML was SURE that JMK was the perp, too. If it weren't for the obvious lack of proof of him being in Boulder, and the fact that ZERO forensic evidence linked him to the crime, ML would have put this on him and that would have been the end of it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I sure can. Back when the DNA was submitted to CODIS, a big deal was made of how the DA had to fight to get it submitted because it didn't possess the required 13 markers. This is what the Daily Camera said about it as recently as 2006:

"A second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined."

It helps to remember that a LOT of law enforcement professionals actively discourage the use of partial DNA profiles. That's one big reason for the 13-marker minimum.



Ah, the question I've been waiting to hear.

A few things to keep in mind: generally speaking, LE is divided into two groups on DNA: first are those who believe that it's the end-all, be-all of crime investigation and that it, above all other things, should be focused on and developed strenuously; for the sake of argument, we will refer to these people as developists. They are the new school.

Then, there are those who view DNA as an extremely important hammer in the toolbox of law enforcement, but realize that it does have limitations and that building a strong overall case should come first. These are the old school people, who we will refer to as constructionists. This is the camp into which I fall very firmly.

An even better illustration is this: 40 years ago, DNA testing methods and many other modern forensics did not exist. Cops and prosecutors had to rely more on effort, intelligence and guts to make cases: running down leads, interviewing suspects right off, etc. And they did it pretty well, all things considered. The mantra back then was "if you don't solve it in 48 hours, you might never solve it."

Now, we have all of these testing methods, and people have fallen into the trap that science is infallible and they don't need the old techniques anymore. Well, one of my main themes in my times at WS has been that LE needs to re-embrace the old techniques alongside the new ones.

Let's apply that to your question: assuming that the touch DNA is not degraded (and as I pointed out to HOTYH, I can't say one way on another), as a constructionist, I would be EXTREMELY hesitant to call ANYTHING regarding a partial profile as a match.



That's an interesting one. I'm not comfortable with the word "fabrication." I think it's more a case of several factors:

1) Mary Lacy's general lack of prosecuting experience leading to a misunderstanding of how forensics are supposed to work;

2) ML seems to be firmly in the "new school" camp. In fact, she seemed to be actively hostile to older investigative methods (as Tom Haney found out);

3) It's been said by many people (mostly those who worked with her), that ML had a feminist agenda during her career and that it informed a lot of her decisions. This has led many (including myself) to wonder just what her goal was here.

So, as to how she could have gotten that idea: at best, she possessed a misunderstanding of forensic application. At worst, she had an agenda, and deliberately misunderstood it. Madeleine outlined the choices in another post elsewhere.

Phew! Sorry to run so long, Mysteeri. I'm sure you didn't expect me to talk so much, but I had a lot to say.

Have you thought about starting a news service, because much of this is NEWS TO ME. Although there's a lot of doublespeak going on. Plus a tendency toward the verbose.

The news I've read is that the touch DNA matched DNA previously found and submitted to CODIS. The news is referenced and cross-referenced in both news and technical articles. The possibility that the underwear CODIS DNA and longjohn touch DNA belong to two different people is statistically ruled out. End of story.

IOW nice try but fail. Seems to be a feeble attempt to disassociate the three DNA deposits with one another despite a dozen news reports and technical articles to the contrary.

When we deal in truths, in facts (regardless of the tools or methods we use old or new doesn't matter), the fact is: the touch DNA findings corroborated the original DNA finding and therefore enables the DNA profile to be confirmed as not belonging to a member of the family--someone who was there that night. Thats why its so important. It also clearly showed that matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence and in the context of the crime that was committed.

I understand fully why RDI asks us not to believe the news, and instead believe that the DNA evidence was simply the product of politically motivated people. That the results have been misinterpreted to favor a POV. This just fits every other baseless claim RDI makes every day. Its because otherwise RDI will cease to exist in their own eyes and the focus would be on the intruder(s).

My focus would be on suspects who match the DNA, handwriting, linguistics, or profile information that was already published in an effort to find the killer.

 

[MurriFlower]

Have you thought about starting a news service, because much of this is NEWS TO ME. Although there's a lot of doublespeak going on. Plus a tendency toward the verbose.

The news I've read is that the touch DNA matched DNA previously found and submitted to CODIS. The news is referenced and cross-referenced in both news and technical articles. The possibility that the underwear CODIS DNA and longjohn touch DNA belong to two different people is statistically ruled out. End of story.

IOW nice try but fail. Seems to be a feeble attempt to disassociate the three DNA deposits with one another despite a dozen news reports and technical articles to the contrary.

When we deal in truths, in facts (regardless of the tools or methods we use old or new doesn't matter), the fact is: the touch DNA findings corroborated the original DNA finding and therefore enables the DNA profile to be confirmed as not belonging to a member of the family--someone who was there that night. Thats why its so important. It also clearly showed that matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence and in the context of the crime that was committed.

I understand fully why RDI asks us not to believe the news, and instead believe that the DNA evidence was simply the product of politically motivated people. That the results have been misinterpreted to favor a POV. This just fits every other baseless claim RDI makes every day. Its because otherwise RDI will cease to exist in their own eyes and the focus would be on the intruder(s).

My focus would be on suspects who match the DNA, handwriting, linguistics, or profile information that was already published in an effort to find the killer.

Yes, yes, yes!!:Jumpie:

 

[Roy23]

Whether IDI likes it or not, this is a very real issue they'll have to overcome.

No it is not an issue for IDI. You know I love you Dave but your head is in the sand real deep. This DNA evidence is the smoking gun and it won't be long before you are going to have to accept it. Unless you just decide one day that all the protagonist's you like to quote will one day be antagonists.

Touch DNA is a scary new technology and not always a good method to use. It was perfect for this one.

 

[BBB167893]

ML was SURE that JMK was the perp, too. If it weren't for the obvious lack of proof of him being in Boulder, and the fact that ZERO forensic evidence linked him to the crime, ML would have put this on him and that would have been the end of it.

Yeah, I don't doubt that for a minute. In fact, that's exactly what I was afraid of. He was the perfect fall guy. But the DA's own investigative methods bricked them into a corner. That's why I have trouble with people who trust a DA who wasn't even bright enough to frame the guy who said "I did it."

 

[BBB167893]

Have you thought about starting a news service, because much of this is NEWS TO ME.

Boy, THAT explains an awful lot!

Although there's a lot of doublespeak going on.

"Doublespeak" my Irish fanny. I said exactly what I meant. You know, for a minute back there, I thought I'd figured you wrong. When you said, "Do you then also believe the legging DNA is degraded?" I thought, "excellent. An intelligent question that we can hash over." Hope dies so fast around here.

Plus a tendency toward the verbose.

Like I said, I didn't mean to run so long, but it was the only way I felt I could answer Mysteeri's questions intelligently.

The news I've read is that the touch DNA matched DNA previously found and submitted to CODIS.

I know that. Unfortunately, the news in this country has myriad problems, oversimplification being one of them.

The news is referenced and cross-referenced in both news and technical articles.

The problem with that is that most news all comes from the same source, and then becomes a rush to see who can break it first.

The possibility that the underwear CODIS DNA and longjohn touch DNA belong to two different people is statistically ruled out. End of story.

I'm afraid it's NOT the end, which was exactly my point to Mysteeri. If you're claiming to have "matched" a partial DNA profile, you open yourself up to a LOT of problems. You may in fact have something big on your hands, but you can't say end of story and be done with it, not by a damn sight. An explanation is demanded.

IOW, statistically ruled out? I. Don't. Think. So.

IOW nice try but fail. Seems to be a feeble attempt to disassociate the three DNA deposits with one another despite a dozen news reports and technical articles to the contrary.

Not as such, HOTYH. I'm just explaining the problems with using partial DNA profiles, especially given the larger context of this particular case.

When we deal in truths, in facts (regardless of the tools or methods we use old or new doesn't matter), the fact is: the touch DNA findings corroborated the original DNA finding and therefore enables the DNA profile to be confirmed as not belonging to a member of the family--someone who was there that night. Thats why its so important.

Okay, so it doesn't belong to a family member. That's one on the scale for you. Someone earlier used the "weight scale" metaphor. I think that's very astute.

It also clearly showed that matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence and in the context of the crime that was committed.

Without a donor to match it against--especially a donor who fits a lot of the other evidence--it does not show that, at least not the way you make out.

I understand fully why RDI asks us not to believe the news, and instead believe that the DNA evidence was simply the product of politically motivated people. That the results have been misinterpreted to favor a POV.

I don't see how anyone can look at the big picture of this and say with a straight face that political motivation and favoring a POV were not factors. To anyone who thinks THAT, I have three words: John Mark Karr.

You say you understand RDI? I find that very hard to believe.

This just fits every other baseless claim RDI makes every day.

Baseless, my eye. That goes for both this issue and in general! Some day, I'll show you that RDI does not equal stupid.

Its because otherwise RDI will cease to exist in their own eyes and the focus would be on the intruder(s).

Are you kidding? Nothing would please me more than exactly that!

You want to talk about baseless claims? I can't think of any better than the claims you make about RDI.

My focus would be on suspects who match the DNA, handwriting, linguistics, or profile information that was already published in an effort to find the killer.

Well, let me ask you this: which of the two categories do you fall into? As for what you'd focus on, you might do better with just that first one, if you get my meaning.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Without a donor to match it against--especially a donor who fits a lot of the other evidence--it does not show that, at least not the way you make out.

What are you talking about??

Nobody needs a donor to know that multiple matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence, and can be found in the context of the crime that was committed. This is inarguable case fact that you wish to argue anyway for reasons known only to yourself. You've also invented degraded partial profile DNA as if it is pertinent, when neither the touch DNA nor the CODIS DNA are degraded partial profiles.

Like I said, let me know when there's either a DNA match for the existing profile (that experts say is unique), a handwriting match, a linguistics match, or a published profile match. Then we'll have a NEW suspect because the EXISTING suspects dont match.

 

[BBB167893]

No it is not an issue for IDI.

I wish I could say that with a straight face.

You know I love you Dave

You sure got a funny way of showing it!

but your head is in the sand real deep.

MY head?? I find that assertion laughable, to be blunt with you.

This DNA evidence is the smoking gun and it won't be long before you are going to have to accept it.

Well, tempting as it may be for me to say "that'll be the day, pilgrim," I've learned to never say "never."

Unless you just decide one day that all the protagonist's you like to quote will one day be antagonists.

Just what does that mean? I'm not looking for a fight; I just don't want to misinterpret you.

Touch DNA is a scary new technology and not always a good method to use.

Now THAT's something we can agree on!

It was perfect for this one.

I knew it couldn't last. I fail to see how it's "perfect" for this case. Or why I or anyone else should TRUST what comes out of the BDA's office.

 

[Mysteeri]

(No comments needed for this one, just thinking in writing or something)

I understand what you mean about "old school" and "new school" SuperDave, and that DNA does not always "destroy" the case, it`s significance of course depends on the case and it`s details. Sometimes (rarely?) "old school" has led to wrong convictions though, and DNA has exhonorated people.

I still don`t know where Lacy got information that the DNAs are a match. It`s hard to imagine, even if she is biased or incompetent, that she just made it up or completely misinterpreted information. She must have some basis for that claim. I`m not interested in Lacy`s character right now though, but in the question: can the DNAs be matched or not? If the DNAs are from the same individual from different locations on JB, and from different sources (skin cells and body fluid), it`s difficult to find an innocent explanation.

Anyway, I have given up that this case can be solved, unless the DNA is identified. I respect everyone who still believes it can be solved and continues to investigate.

 

[BBB167893]

What are you talking about??

What am I talking about? Are you kidding? Just what I said: unless you can find a donor who can be placed inside the house that night by other evidence, then all you've got is another puzzle piece, which may or may not add to the overall picture.

Nobody needs a donor to know that multiple matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence, and can be found in the context of the crime that was committed.

With that attitude, this case will never get anywhere.

This is inarguable case fact that you wish to argue anyway for reasons known only to yourself.

1) It's hardly inarguable.

2) You'd better believe I have reasons.

You've also invented degraded partial profile DNA as if it is pertinent,

I didn't "invent" a thing. That's LOW, HOTYH. And you BET it's pertinent, pilgrim.

when neither the touch DNA nor the CODIS DNA are degraded partial profiles.

1) Regarding the touch DNA: how do you KNOW that? I can't remember hearing anything about how many markers it had.

2) As for the CODIS DNA: you're the man who's big on the news. Well, that's where I got my info on that subject. Don't kill the messenger.

Like I said, let me know when there's either a DNA match for the existing profile (that experts say is unique),

You'll be the first to know.

a handwriting match, a linguistics match,

Well, if I were a betting man (and I'm not, mind you), I'd lay pretty bad odds on anyone being a better "match" than a certain other person I could mention.

or a published profile match.

Just WHICH profile would that be? Because I've got one of my own.

Then we'll have a NEW suspect because the EXISTING suspects don't match.

Yeah, on the off chance we could find someone who fit all of those criteria, we would have a new suspect.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nobody needs a donor to know that multiple matching DNA deposits can be found among the evidence, and can be found in the context of the crime that was committed. This is inarguable case fact that you wish to argue anyway for reasons known only to yourself.

1) It's hardly inarguable.

2) You'd better believe I have reasons.

What part of this do you believe is arguable, and what are your reasons for arguing it?

It appears that your reasons are RDI-or-bust, and so anything that even appears as if IDI becomes arguable. Am I right? I think I am because there's no rational argument given the widely reported facts and results.

If you wish to question the sources simply for the sake of questioning IDI then we could question other things widely reported, like whether JBR was ever murdered in the first place. I mean, have you ever seen her while she was alive? No. After death? No.

Only what you read in the papers, right?

It therefore seems you would like everyone to pick and choose only those select things that are RDI-biased. But...is there even anything widely reported that favors RDI? No.

 

[Roy23]

(No comments needed for this one, just thinking in writing or something)

I understand what you mean about "old school" and "new school" SuperDave, and that DNA does not always "destroy" the case, it`s significance of course depends on the case and it`s details. Sometimes (rarely?) "old school" has led to wrong convictions though, and DNA has exhonorated people.

I still don`t know where Lacy got information that the DNAs are a match. It`s hard to imagine, even if she is biased or incompetent, that she just made it up or completely misinterpreted information. She must have some basis for that claim. I`m not interested in Lacy`s character right now though, but in the question: can the DNAs be matched or not? If the DNAs are from the same individual from different locations on JB, and from different sources (skin cells and body fluid), it`s difficult to find an innocent explanation.

Anyway, I have given up that this case can be solved, unless the DNA is identified. I respect everyone who still believes it can be solved and continues to investigate.

Mysteeri,

High level experts from Bode Labs MATCHED the DNA from the panties to the touch DNA. ML did not do the testing she just submitted at least the long johns to Bode. Bode produced the report and presented and explained it to a group probably including ML and Chief Beckner. It was a match, not a partial match. The only degraded DNA was fingernail DNA which was pretty consistant originally to the panty DNA.

You are right that the case won't be solved without the DNA identified. But something in their evidence could point them to the person to be tested. I do believe it will be solved in the next few years now. No matter what anybody else says here, it seems obvious that the focus of the investigation changed a couple of years ago.

 

[Roy23]

I wish I could say that with a straight face.



You sure got a funny way of showing it!



MY head?? I find that assertion laughable, to be blunt with you.



Well, tempting as it may be for me to say "that'll be the day, pilgrim," I've learned to never say "never."



Just what does that mean? I'm not looking for a fight; I just don't want to misinterpret you.



Now THAT's something we can agree on!



I knew it couldn't last. I fail to see how it's "perfect" for this case. Or why I or anyone else should TRUST what comes out of the BDA's office.

I am not trying to fight with you Dave. I just disagree with you and I totally believe the RDI theory has been debunked for a couple of years now. It frustrates me actually but let me say that if somehow you were right, I would apologize and buy 100 copies of your book or visit you personally and present a bottle of Champagne.

I can only deduce from what has been said that all the current investigators now believe IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

What part of this do you believe is arguable, and what are your reasons for arguing it?

Now, we're getting somewhere. Okay:

1) "Multiple matching DNA deposits." What definition of "matching" are we using here? I mean, would you describe something that had less than the minimum standard as a match to anything, even if that something else was the full profile?

2) "Found in the context of the crime that was committed." Just what "context" would that be? What was the crime? Because as far as I can tell--and the great majority of expert opinion is with me here--it's a domestic violence incident staged to look like a kidnapping gone bad. Just how does the DNA fit into that context?

It appears that your reasons are RDI-or-bust, and so anything that even appears as if IDI becomes arguable. Am I right?

Is that a trick question? Of course not. Indeed, there's one reason above all: it goes back to the "scale." IOW, it's DNA vs. Everything Else.

I think I am

I'm sure you do.

because there's no rational argument given the widely reported facts and results.

My Irish patoot, there isn't. Just because something is widely reported doesn't make it a fact. It was widely reported that Iraq had WMDs. We all know how that ended up.

If you wish to question the sources simply for the sake of questioning IDI

I don't. I have my reasons.

then we could question other things widely reported,

I think we should anyway.

like whether JBR was ever murdered in the first place.

I realize you meant that as a joke, but from a legal standpoint, that does bear some examination.

I mean, have you ever seen her while she was alive? No. After death? No.

What's that got to do with anything?

Only what you read in the papers, right?

Where are you going with this, HOTYH?

It therefore seems you would like everyone to pick and choose only those select things that are RDI-biased.

Not at all. I just wouldn't mind a little acknowledgement of those very things.

But...is there even anything widely reported that favors RDI? No.

That matters nothing to me. The Rs and that bully-boy Lin Wood have spent a lot of time, money and effort making sure that RDI facts are NOT reported.

Why don't you ever acknowledge that, HOTYH?

 

[BBB167893]

I understand what you mean about "old school" and "new school" SuperDave, and that DNA does not always "destroy" the case, it`s significance of course depends on the case and it`s details.

My point exactly.

Sometimes (rarely?) "old school" has led to wrong convictions though, and DNA has exhonorated people.

Very true. I'm not saying that "old school" is perfect. Odin knows it isn't, and never will be. But you can't argue with success. Yes, people have been wrongly convicted, but those are extremely rare instances. And yes, DNA has exhonorated people, but it's not quite that simple. A lot of those DNA exhonorations have been technicalities. Wendy Murphy talks about this phenomenon in her book, And Justice for Some.

I still don`t know where Lacy got information that the DNAs are a match.

Join the club.

It`s hard to imagine, even if she is biased or incompetent, that she just made it up or completely misinterpreted information. She must have some basis for that claim.

Maybe. I'm not claiming she did either of those, at least not yet. But she certainly seems to place more faith in it than may be warranted.

I`m not interested in Lacy`s character right now though,

Plenty of time for that later.

but in the question: can the DNAs be matched or not?

That would be the question.

If the DNAs are from the same individual from different locations on JB, and from different sources (skin cells and body fluid), it`s difficult to find an innocent explanation.

Well, it would help to find out.

Anyway, I have given up that this case can be solved, unless the DNA is identified. I respect everyone who still believes it can be solved and continues to investigate.

Never give up. All I ask is this: keep in mind the old school, where smart prosecutors know how to build a case; and the new school, where you let science make the case for you.

 

[BBB167893]

I am not trying to fight with you Dave.

I appreciate that. But if you were in my position, and someone said something that, to the best of your knowledge was false, or designed to get under a person's skin, you wouldn't let it stand, would you?

I'll give you an example: what you said to Mysteeri. There are several points in there that I have problems with.

So, if you consider a spirited debate to be a "fight," I'm sorry about that. But I don't consider that fighting. It's just that around here, if you're going to make statements like "no degraded DNA," you'd better have something behind it.

I just disagree with you and I totally believe the RDI theory has been debunked for a couple of years now.

I gathered. I have no problem with disagreement. As for it being debunked, obviously you know my feelings on that. Frankly,

It frustrates me actually but let me say that if somehow you were right, I would apologize and buy 100 copies of your book or visit you personally and present a bottle of Champagne.

Thanks for giving me a laugh, Roy. I mean that.

I can only deduce from what has been said that all the current investigators now believe IDI.

Well, whether you believe this or not, I understand that position. But as with all things, I encourage people to examine the context.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Now, we're getting somewhere. Okay:

1) "Multiple matching DNA deposits." What definition of "matching" are we using here? I mean, would you describe something that had less than the minimum standard as a match to anything, even if that something else was the full profile?

2) "Found in the context of the crime that was committed." Just what "context" would that be? What was the crime? Because as far as I can tell--and the great majority of expert opinion is with me here--it's a domestic violence incident staged to look like a kidnapping gone bad. Just how does the DNA fit into that context?

OH, I see...

You're not questioning me at all--you're questioning the news report. Your question is as if Bode, the DA, or BPD never said anything valid.

Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came from and whether that person was the killer.

Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched something.

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

http://cbs4denver.com/local/ramsey.jonbenet.dna.2.767137.html


This is rationale, not politics. I believe its that investigative work you had referred to. Personally, I tend to have respect for professional organizations in their line of work unless there is cause or reason to believe otherwise.

How are you feeling right now about the district attorney's office? The Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology, Dr. Meyer, Dr. Beuf, or any other professional that was close to JBR or this case?

Back to the DNA, and to a better argument for RDI: Why not accept the DNA as matching, but that it was placed by an evidence handler post-mortem? Somebody who had access to both the underwear and longjohns but that access was not documented. Somebody not using correct glove technique or evidence handling procedures.

 

[Roy23]

Dave,

In regards to your above post addressed to me and with Holdon's strong reply above concerning professional organizations, I think you should strongly consider that concerning the DNA they continue to use the word match. The word match in DNA technology is a very important concept.