IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

OH, I see...

I certainly hope so!

You're not questioning me at all--you're questioning the news report.

Something like that. I'm questioning the media's quickness to take ML at her word, given all we know about her.

Your question is as if Bode, the DA, or BPD never said anything valid.

Ah-ah. Be very careful here, HOTYH. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm merely trying to figure out how credible this all is.

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

I read it. It doesn't give any inkling of the larger issues.

This is rationale, not politics.

I'm sure it is rationale to you. But ML had tried many times before to find something that would allow her to clear the Rs. Now she finds this. Okay. But you can't seriously expect me to do a complete 180 on her say-so. Politics has poisoned this case from Day One, HOTYH. Now I ask you: when this became known to her, what do you think was the first thought in her mind? "This might be the case-breaker?" Or "I told you so?"

I believe its that investigative work you had referred to.

More like the lack of investigative work.

Personally, I tend to have respect for professional organizations in their line of work unless there is cause or reason to believe otherwise.

You took the words right out of my mouth, brother.

How are you feeling right now about the district attorney's office?

I don't know enough about this new guy to say one way or the other.

The Boulder Police Department,

About the same.

Bode Technology,

Well, I'm not too pleased about how they shined me. Other than that, just doing their job.

Dr. Meyer,

Probably did all he could under the circumstances.

Dr. Beuf,

I think he made a big mistake. Maybe for the right reasons, maybe for the wrong ones.

Lin Wood,

:furious: How much time do you have, HOTYH? I think he's a cockroach who feeds off of human tragedy and suffering. Look how he brags about how much money he's made off of a little girl's murder. I think he's obsessed with what happened to his father and has dedicated his life to opposing justice. And I think that he is a MAJOR reason why this case is in the damn lousy shape it's in.

And those are just his good points!

Look, I can have respect for people I don't agree with. Time will tell whether or not IDI is right or wrong. But this is one guy who will NEVER come off the s**t list. He consigned himself to that page FOR LIFE.

or any other professional that was close to JBR or this case?

What are your feelings, HOTYH?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Re: Bode Technology

Well, I'm not too pleased about how they shined me. Other than that, just doing their job.

Bode told us that they found enough skin cell DNA in each of two (2) locations on the longjohn waistband to create two new separate profiles and that both these profiles matched each other and the original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted years prior. Where is the argument here? Its an objective statement; more than a mere claim.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

Roy.

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.

IDI's awfully picky about what professional organizations he chooses to respect. Just thought I'd point that out.

I get what you're saying, Roy. My gripe is not with Bode. If they it's a match, it very well could be. There are just too many issues, which I've tried to have addressed, for all the good it's done me. And you don't have to tell me how important the word "match" is in DNA terms. I just wish that some people would consider how important some other concepts are.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

You're not telling me anything I haven't thought of already, HOTYH. Indeed, out of all the scenarios, that's among the better ones.

 

[MurriFlower]

You're not telling me anything I haven't thought of already, HOTYH. Indeed, out of all the scenarios, that's among the better ones.

I'll put it in the same category as PP and the golf bag.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

You're not telling me anything I haven't thought of already, HOTYH. Indeed, out of all the scenarios, that's among the better ones.

Whats the best scenario?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I read it. It doesn't give any inkling of the larger issues.

I think RDI's larger issues got trumped by this DNA. Certainly by the American media, which does tend to do a better job representing public opinion than, say, North Korea media.

 

[BBB167893]

Re: Bode Technology

Bode told us that they found enough skin cell DNA in each of two (2) locations on the longjohn waistband to create two new separate profiles and that both these profiles matched each other and the original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted years prior. Where is the argument here? Its an objective statement; more than a mere claim.

One thing at a time, HOTYH. When I talked about how they shined me, I was referring to how they brushed me off when I tried to get some answers to some questions.

Now, I like the way you phrased that, HOTYH:

and the original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted years prior

And therein lies the rub. You've just told me in your own words that they say the new DNA matched a degraded sample. So how could it be a true match?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Molecular biologist Melissa Weber of CellMark Laboratories consulted several detectives after CellMark analyzed the DNA, she said it was several days old and degraded !
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/check/burke.html

How the heck did it become new and pristine?


Oh, and the fingernail and panty dna don't even match!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

One thing at a time, HOTYH. When I talked about how they shined me, I was referring to how they brushed me off when I tried to get some answers to some questions.

Now, I like the way you phrased that, HOTYH:

and the original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted years prior

And therein lies the rub. You've just told me in your own words that they say the new DNA matched a degraded sample. So how could it be a true match?

You'll have to post a quote where I stated the original DNA was a degraded sample. THEN it'll be in my own words. Until then, kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

It is my understanding that CODIS DNA and degraded DNA are mutually opposing concepts. Neither the CODIS DNA nor the touch DNA are considered 'degraded' by any source. Feel free to show, by major source, an opposing view.

 

[BBB167893]

Whats the best scenario?

Now that I think about it, taking everything into account, that IS the best one.

I think RDI's larger issues got trumped by this DNA.

Yeah, I gathered that's what you think. The problem is, the people running this investigation think the same, and they ought to know better.

Certainly by the American media, which does tend to do a better job representing public opinion than, say, North Korea media.

That's not saying a whole lot, HOTYH.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...9HtC-x&sig=AHIEtbQ6-9qWjCaCByDYYjxL3SaUieD65w

scroll down to "12 important questions always need to be asked about DNA evidence"



http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp11proc/abstracts/Schmerer2.pdf

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's not saying a whole lot, HOTYH.

Sure it is.

Nobody puts RDI in print anymore. Blaming it on the all-powerful Lin Wood or Mary Lacy is just your excuse for what is really happening...:boohoo: Its a good thing they exist, otherwise there'd be no exuse at all.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Now that I think about it, taking everything into account, that IS the best one.

Just let me know when you're in need of RDI material. Its cheap. Really cheap.

 

[Roy23]

Molecular biologist Melissa Weber of CellMark Laboratories consulted several detectives after CellMark analyzed the DNA, she said it was several days old and degraded !
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/check/burke.html

How the heck did it become new and pristine?


Oh, and the fingernail and panty dna don't even match!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My my my, you just don't get it. Let's assume that the information in this very old article is predominantly true. Cellmark, just like Bode, is a professional organization that analyzes such stuff. They also have a very large research and development team that continues to refine and improve DNA technology.

One of the issues with the DNA was done at the hands of the coroner. The fact that the DNA was several days old, who's fault is that? Who's fault is it that it may have been degraded? Is it the Ramsey's fault? Their attorneys?

The bottom line is this--whatever they did whether it be PCR or some new development it is critical to understand the bottom line. If a Cellmark or Bode is calling it a match who is anyone here with any kind of sense to argue it? This ain't ML calling it a match, it is a prestigous research facility. If you watch crime shows, FBI files, in so many cases the PD has saved evidence to lay in wait for new technology. It happens every day.

 

[BBB167893]

I'll put it in the same category as PP and the golf bag.

That's unfortunate. But not unexpected.

 

[BBB167893]

You'll have to post a quote where I stated the original DNA was a degraded sample.

I JUST DID. Here you go, in your own words:

and the original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted years prior

The original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted only had nine markers. And they had to amplify it to get THAT many. Would you like to rephrase your statement?

THEN it'll be in my own words. Until then, kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

I did nothing of the kind.

It is my understanding that CODIS DNA and degraded DNA are mutually opposing concepts.

They are, my friend. That's why there was such resistance to have it accepted into the data bank in the first place. The way I understand it, the DNA sample itself cannot be placed into the permanent CODIS database, but is instead resubmitted on a regular basis.

Neither the CODIS DNA nor the touch DNA are considered 'degraded' by any source. Feel free to show, by major source, an opposing view.

I already did. I showed you that quote from the Daily Camera's "DNA Timeline" page. Remember, the one that you said was "news" to you?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I JUST DID. Here you go, in your own words:

and the original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted years prior

The original CODIS DNA sample exactly as it was submitted only had nine markers. And they had to amplify it to get THAT many. Would you like to rephrase your statement? No. Why would I? You're making a claim stated as fact, and asking me to rephrase to acknowledge your claim. Thats just silly and is frankly becoming trite.



I did nothing of the kind. You stated that 'in my words' the DNA was degraded. I said it matched what was submitted to CODIS, thats all. This is a silly attempt at spin. You're the only one amused, or at least I'm not.



They are, my friend. That's why there was such resistance to have it accepted into the data bank in the first place. The way I understand it, the DNA sample itself cannot be placed into the permanent CODIS database, but is instead resubmitted on a regular basis.

I understand thats the way you understand it.

You're seeing stuff that isn't there, saying stuff that didn't happen. Almost a hallucination. What happened was BPD sat on the DNA, called it degraded because they had RDI'tis and couldn't handle an intruder POV. But when they sought help from the FBI, the FBI took the samples and found completely acceptable undegraded DNA deposits.



I already did. I showed you that quote from the Daily Camera's "DNA Timeline" page. Remember, the one that you said was "news" to you?

Would you like to see some DNA sources that are real, factual, and corroborated instead?

 

[BBB167893]

Sure it is.

Not lately. Look, if you want to get into an argument over whether or not the media reflects public opinion, just in general, I'm just the man to give you one. Indeed, in this particular case, it resembles the North Korean media a little too closely for my liking.

Nobody puts RDI in print anymore.

And there's a few people who want it that way.

Blaming it on the all-powerful Lin Wood or Mary Lacy is just your excuse for what is really happening...

"Excuse," my flabby Irish butt! DO NOT give me that, HOTYH. Anyone can see what went on here. Indeed, Lin Wood has STATED many times that this was exactly his goal. I think Wendy Murphy said it best:

He’s a bully. And he’s bullied a lot of networks into not letting people talk about the real evidence in this case.

I will make one concession, HOTYH. A lot of it has to do with the media's "of-the-moment" nature.

Its a good thing they exist, otherwise there'd be no excuse at all.

You got that just the other way around, brother. If not for them, it's likely this would not have happened.