IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

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

Gee, thanks.

Now, I realize this is a novel idea, but since we have this argument, perhaps we should argue it?

 

[Roy23]

Okay guys, I will play mediator here somewhat. No reason to have a pissing contest but we will never get over the hump here until this issue gets reasoned out. But I guess maybe we will never be able to do that.

No matter what was said about the DNA they confirm that it matches. It may be from PCR amplification from a mixed sample as these reports stated is the reason for degradation. It stands to reason that mixed samples could never match unless there was a technological way to do so.

I think RDI grasps at straws when not only do they have issues with the DA's office, the BPD, and now maybe professional crime labs. The reports on DNA initially are a two faced issue depending on what you choose to believe. I get that. But they are not going to claim they have a match if they don't. I just think RDI needs to accept this and go on with their theories of how it could have gotten there in the first place.

Otherwise this is a conspiricy theory that goes way beyond the city of Boulder, the state of Colorado. It becomes a national conspiricy.

 

[BBB167893]

My my my, you just don't get it. 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?

Somebody doesn't get it, that's for sure. JonBenet's own DNA was perfectly fresh and complete, from the SAME area. What Linda7NJ means is that it was several days old (possibly more than that) at the time of JB's death. It's not a question of being anybody's fault.

The bottom line is this--whatever they did whether it be PCR or some new development it is critical to understand the bottom line.

You're right: the more sensitive DNA testing methods become, the more circumspect LE will have to become about the results.

If a Cellmark or Bode is calling it a match who is anyone here with any kind of sense to argue it?

It's one thing to argue it. We just would like some explanations, is all. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

This ain't ML calling it a match, it is a prestigous research facility.

That's not the issue, Roy. It's what ML DID with it, when she ought to know better. If a prestigious research facility says it's a match, I'm sure they have their reasons. (My only issue is whether or not Bode believes in using partial profiles.) And if ML wants to use it as an investigative lead, that's her business. But she had NO business using it to exhonorate anybody. DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape. And even then, when there was only one attacker and the victim was not sexually active. In virtually all other cases, DNA can include suspects, not exclude them.

IDI dismisses the issues with the DA's office as if they were nothing. They're not nothing. IDI is going to HAVE to address them at some point. And they'd better bring their A-game when they do it. Because, as the old saying goes: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice--not gonna happen.

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.

Yeah, we know that. The point is that it can lead to laziness.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Okay guys, I will play mediator here somewhat. No reason to have a pissing contest but we will never get over the hump here until this issue gets reasoned out. But I guess maybe we will never be able to do that.

No matter what was said about the DNA they confirm that it matches. It may be from PCR amplification from a mixed sample as these reports stated is the reason for degradation. It stands to reason that mixed samples could never match unless there was a technological way to do so.

I think RDI grasps at straws when not only do they have issues with the DA's office, the BPD, and now maybe professional crime labs. The reports on DNA initially are a two faced issue depending on what you choose to believe. I get that. But they are not going to claim they have a match if they don't. I just think RDI needs to accept this and go on with their theories of how it could have gotten there in the first place.

Otherwise this is a conspiricy theory that goes way beyond the city of Boulder, the state of Colorado. It becomes a national conspiricy.

I wonder if the hump you're referring to is converting the inconvertable? Illumination for the blind?

You can lead a horse to water...

Here's my point: The crux of IDI is the DNA, and of RDI is PR's jacket fiber, right?

Among the DA's office, crime labs, FBI, BPD, and the media, the DNA is referenced and is referenced in ways ranging from 'important' to 'belongs to JBR's killer'. PR's jacket fiber isn't referred to at all, which really should raise the question of legitimacy and sourcing.

 

[BBB167893]

No. Why would I?

Just asking.

You're making a claim stated as fact, and asking me to rephrase to acknowledge your claim.

1) The Daily Camera made that claim, not me. 2) I'm not asking you to acknowledge my claim. I was giving you a chance to rephrase on behalf of your own position.

Thats just silly and is frankly becoming trite.

You're right about that!

You stated that 'in my words' the DNA was degraded. I said it matched what was submitted to CODIS, thats all.

That's right!

This is a silly attempt at spin.

I don't deal in spin, HOTYH. You ought to know that by now.

You're the only one amused, or at least I'm not.

I gathered.

I understand thats the way you understand it.

Not just me.

You're seeing stuff that isn't there, saying stuff that didn't happen. Almost a hallucination.

Give me a break.

What happened was BPD sat on the DNA, called it degraded because they had RDI'tis and couldn't handle an intruder POV.

Please, HOTYH. Do not waste my time with that nonsense.

But when they sought help from the FBI, the FBI took the samples and found completely acceptable undegraded DNA deposits.

Also wrong. The DA was handling it then, not the police. It was not complete, undegraded or anything of the kind. It was widely reported (to use a phrase you like) that the DNA submitted had only nine markers. Try getting your news from the papers, and not Lin Wood or those other goons the Rs hired.

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

Thanks, but I've already got some.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

It didn't, Linda. The testing methods simply got better. Dr. Kobalinsky pointed that out.

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

THANK YOU!

 

[Roy23]

I wonder if the hump you're referring to is converting the inconvertable? Illumination for the blind?

You can lead a horse to water...

Here's my point: The crux of IDI is the DNA, and of RDI is PR's jacket fiber, right?

Among the DA's office, crime labs, FBI, BPD, and the media, the DNA is referenced and is referenced in ways ranging from 'important' to 'belongs to JBR's killer'. PR's jacket fiber isn't referred to at all, which really should raise the question of legitimacy and sourcing.

I guess so Holdon. His response to my last post is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. The DNA is a match and RDI can't accept it. And they think they deserve more answers.

I won't quote John Wayne but I will quote Clint Eastwood.

"Deserve ain't got nothin to do with it"

 

[BBB167893]

Okay guys, I will play mediator here somewhat. No reason to have a pissing contest but we will never get over the hump here until this issue gets reasoned out. But I guess maybe we will never be able to do that.

There are quite a few issues to hash out that I'm convinced never will be.

No matter what was said about the DNA they confirm that it matches. It may be from PCR amplification from a mixed sample as these reports stated is the reason for degradation. It stands to reason that mixed samples could never match unless there was a technological way to do so.

That's a very reasonable argument. So let me make one: technological advances are a great thing, IF used properly. That's what that whole "new school, old school" bit was about.

I think RDI grasps at straws when not only do they have issues with the DA's office, the BPD, and now maybe professional crime labs.

Well, you're part right. We do have issues with the DA's office. That's about the extent of it. As for grasping at straws, I can see how some people would like to think that.

The reports on DNA initially are a two faced issue depending on what you choose to believe. I get that.

Glad to hear it.

But they are not going to claim they have a match if they don't.

I get that. But you know that not everyone uses the same definition. If one org says "match," is it really asking too much to know how they mean it?

I just think RDI needs to accept this and go on with their theories of how it could have gotten there in the first place.

For the sake of argument, let's say that you're right. HOTYH's already provided a pretty good one. Not that it hasn't been around for a while...

Otherwise this is a conspiricy theory that goes way beyond the city of Boulder, the state of Colorado. It becomes a national conspiricy.

That I know of, no one's alleging any kind of massive conspiracy, Roy.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Also wrong. The DA was handling it then, not the police. It was not complete, undegraded or anything of the kind. It was widely reported (to use a phrase you like) that the DNA submitted had only nine markers. Try getting your news from the papers, and not Lin Wood or those other goons the Rs hired.

I didn't make that up.

Its because of mishandling of the DNA that the investigation left BPD and went to the DA's office.

I think you're trying to claim that BPD magnified substandard DNA and put some nebulous thing into CODIS, and Bode matched a partial profile. This is an outright misrepresentation.

What really happened is the FBI (not BPD) identified an additional DNA deposit that contained enough markers to represent one individual on Earth.

Later, the DNA discovered on the longjohns matched that same individual's profile. This validated the original DNA finding. The three (3) DNA deposits are mutually corroborative. There are no weaknesses, no degradations, no questions.

 

[madeleine]

PR's jacket fiber isn't referred to at all, which really should raise the question of legitimacy and sourcing.

Thank you.
Per ST the source is Trujillo.Trujillo is the source for every RDI evidence ST is talking about in his book, which is supposed to prove PDI.Why didn't I hear Trujillo then claiming all this or showing a report.

 

[madeleine]

Guys,am I the only one having trouble accessing the LE interviews/depos on acandyrose site?

 

[BBB167893]

I wonder if the hump you're referring to is converting the inconvertable? Illumination for the blind?

You can lead a horse to water...

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Here's my point: The crux of IDI is the DNA, and of RDI is PR's jacket fiber, right?

Part right. RDI doesn't really have any single "crux." But, for purposes of discussion, we'll say that PR's fibers will do.

Among the DA's office, crime labs, FBI, BPD, and the media, the DNA is referenced and is referenced in ways ranging from 'important' to 'belongs to JBR's killer'. PR's jacket fiber isn't referred to at all, which really should raise the question of legitimacy and sourcing.

Not really. Leaving aside how HOTYH knows that the DA, BPD, FBI and crime labs don't talk about them (maybe he has contacts--I don't know), the only question it raises is how much stock the DA puts in them. Let's not forget this DA's office has a nasty habit of trying to explain away evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

His response to my last post is unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

Just what was so unacceptable about it? I'm not looking for trouble. I just want to know. You don't see me complaining, do you?

The DNA is a match and RDI can't accept it.

"Can't" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I guess so Holdon. His response to my last post is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. The DNA is a match and RDI can't accept it. And they think they deserve more answers.

I won't quote John Wayne but I will quote Clint Eastwood.

"Deserve ain't got nothin to do with it"

Our next scheduled debate is on sky color.

IOW why would RDI agree to anything about any evidence that tends to favor IDI?

SD seems willing to discuss that the DNA belongs to a misbehaving evidence handler. Someone who had access to both the underwear and the longjohns post mortem. This almost seems like a concession that all the DNA matches. Whew!

 

[BBB167893]

I didn't make that up.

I didn't say you did.

Its because of mishandling of the DNA that the investigation left BPD and went to the DA's office.

Oh, come on, HOTYH. Everyone knows that the DA took the case because Lin Wood threatened to sue the BPD. He just used that "mishandling" dodge as a fig leaf.

I think you're trying to claim that BPD magnified substandard DNA and put some nebulous thing into CODIS, and Bode matched a partial profile.

Something like that. Maybe not exactly.

This is an outright misrepresentation.

Be careful, HOTYH. I may be a lot of things, but a liar ain't one of 'em.

What really happened is the FBI (not BPD) identified an additional DNA deposit that contained enough markers to represent one individual on Earth.

That's what Team R claims happened. Trouble is, even the DA's office said that the claim was not true.

Later, the DNA discovered on the longjohns matched that same individual's profile. This validated the original DNA finding. The three (3) DNA deposits are mutually corroborative. There are no weaknesses, no degradations, no questions.

Maybe.

 

[BBB167893]

Our next scheduled debate is on sky color.

LOL! It's getting close to that, isn't it?

IOW why would RDI agree to anything about any evidence that tends to favor IDI?

I realize you meant that rhetorically, but under the right circumstances, RDI will agree to a lot of things.

SD seems willing to discuss that the DNA belongs to a misbehaving evidence handler. Someone who had access to both the underwear and the longjohns post mortem.

I am willing! I don't know about other people, but I'm here to talk, not fight.

This almost seems like a concession that all the DNA matches. Whew!

For the sake of argument, if nothing else, let's say that it is.

 

[Roy23]

Just what was so unacceptable about it? I'm not looking for trouble. I just want to know. You don't see me complaining, do you?



"Can't" has nothing to do with it.

Dave,

It is not even debatable that they have a full profile DNA match in at least 3 different areas. Not that it matters but I would bet by now they have matched the profile from the fingernails too. And probably from other items, but the 3 is enough. If you want to say that the DA was premature in exonertating the Ramsey's by all means go ahead. There is no debate on the DNA, but you are still trying to make one.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

Yo.

It is not even debatable that they have a full profile DNA match in at least 3 different areas.

Let's say you're right, Roy, and you very well may be. What people like Linda and I want to know is how they got it.

Not that it matters but I would bet by now they have matched the profile from the fingernails too.

It's your money. I sure wouldn't bet on that.

And probably from other items, but the 3 is enough.

Let's go with that for now.

If you want to say that the DA was premature in exonertating the Ramsey's by all means go ahead.

You bet I will! That's the issue I've been trying to raise. I wasn't trying to start the Third World War.

There is no debate on the DNA, but you are still trying to make one.

Tell you what, Roy. For the foreseeable future at least, I'll back off.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It didn't, Linda. The testing methods simply got better. Dr. Kobalinsky pointed that out.



THANK YOU!

My understanding is....the was so little, mixed and degraded DNA they had to use PCR...they used the entire sample up while amplifying it. Even after PCR...there wasn't really enough markers to enter it into CODIS. The panty and the fingernail samples didn't even match each other.

So.....my thinking is...garbage in, garbage out........

IMO The only conclusion that I can reach is...the "new" touch DNA sorta, maybe appears similar. That's not a match by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Roy23]

Yo.



Let's say you're right, Roy, and you very well may be. What people like Linda and I want to know is how they got it.



It's your money. I sure wouldn't bet on that.



Let's go with that for now.



You bet I will! That's the issue I've been trying to raise. I wasn't trying to start the Third World War.



Tell you what, Roy. For the foreseeable future at least, I'll back off.

And I will even say that maybe just maybe the public exoneration of the Ramsey family was a little premature considering the information they gave us does not answer why a Ramsey could not have been an accomplis.