IDI: Whats your problem?

[Mysteeri]

Holdontoyourhat

Didn't you read the part about 10 markers being significant? Wasn't that a DNA expert who said that? Why aren't you impressed that the 10 markers they placed in CODIS (right or wrong) exactly matched the DNA found on the leggings? Are you aware that the probability the CODIS DNA and the legging DNA are owned by different people is astronomically remote? This is a serious question that requires an intelligent response. There's no shortage of sources, I've shown them, and it seems you want to simply 'blame it all' on LW and ML. What about everyone else that is involved?

Just butting in to say thank you, that is exactly what I was wondering- the significance of the 10 markers. It seems it is, in practice, enough to make a match to the touch DNA. Claiming otherwise would be "spin" I think (I don`t like that expression too much, it´s often as good as ad hominem). Unless one really has better (expert) knowledge.

 

[cynic]

"Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions."
-Ladd, 1999
I think this aces your previous article.

Of course they were having problems obtaining a result of secondary transfer, they had problems obtaining a profile from primary transfer.
“Our data indicate that the primary transfer of DNA by handling is possible, but detecting an interpretable genotype is not assured.”
-Ladd, 1999

There have been numerous studies that refute this:


DNA yields from swabs of polypropylene tubes held for varying lengths of time
(5 s, 30 s, 3 min, 10 min), did not differ significantly, indicating that substantial transfer
of material occurs during initial contact. (primary transfer)
…
We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer).
“DNA fingerprints from fingerprints,” Nature, June 19,1997 page 767. Roland A. H. van Oorschot and Maxwell K. Jones

A 2006 study by Poy and van Oorschot showed an example of secondary transfer when a mixed DNA profile was found on a swab taken from an examination magnifying lamp. This profile was searched in the lab's database and a match was found with a case that had been worked on the bench-top with the magnifying lamp. It was determined that DNA was transferred from the item being examined to the analyst's gloves and then onto the top of the magnifying lamp.
Journal of Forensic Identification Volume:56 Issue:4, July/August 2006 Pages:558 to 576
Trace DNA Presence, Origin, and Transfer within a Forensic Biology Laboratory and Its Potential Effect on Casework, Adam L. Poy ; Roland A. H. van Oorschot

We have shown that there is a difference between individuals in their tendency to deposit DNA on an item when it is touched. While a good DNA shedder may leave behind a full DNA profile immediately after hand washing, poor DNA shedders may only do so when their hands have not been washed for a period of 6h. We have also demonstrated that transfer of DNA from one individual (A) to another (B) and subsequently to an object is possible under specific laboratory conditions using the AMPFISTR SGM Plus multiplex at both 28 and 34 PCR cycles. This is a form of secondary transfer. If a 30 min or 1h delay was introduced before contact of individual B with the object then at 34 cycles a mixture of profiles from both individuals was recovered. We have also determined that the quantity and quality of DNA profiles recovered is dependent upon the particular individuals involved in the transfer process.
Forensic Science International
Volume 129, Issue 1, 10 September 2002, Pages 25-34
The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces, Alex Lowe, Caroline Murray, Jonathan Whitaker, Gillian Tully, Peter Gill

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item.
“It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
International Congress Series, Volume 1261, April 2004, Pages 53-55
Attribution of DNA profiles to body fluid stains, C. Peel , and P. Gill


(BTW, I have more.)

Secondary transfer is an irrefutable fact, you are free to question whether it happened in the JBR case, but denying it in general, well, that’s not going to work.

 

[cynic]

the significance of the 10 markers. It seems it is, in practice, enough to make a match to the touch DNA. Claiming otherwise would be "spin" I think (I don`t like that expression too much, it´s often as good as ad hominem). Unless one really has better (expert) knowledge.

Didn't you read the part about 10 markers being significant? Wasn't that a DNA expert who said that?

SD’s point is that we are dealing with a partial profile. A full profile is 13 markers, anything less is a partial profile.
Also, keep in mind that this is actually a 9 marker profile that had to have a judgment call made on the 10th marker in order to have it submitted to CODIS
In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODIS databank.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

In many cases when degradation is present, the analyst will not be able to obtain a full profile of 13 loci. When only a partial profile is obtained, the evidence is still useful to the prosecutor, but the prosecutor must be especially careful not to overstate the significance of the evidence.
…
Contamination is also a concern with all forensic evidence samples. Because of the nature of the evidence, samples can be contaminated by material from several sources, including the victim, the perpetrator and the people who handled and processed the evidence.
A Litigator's Guide to DNA, Michaelis, Flanders & Wulff, 2008

Why aren't you impressed that the 10 markers they placed in CODIS (right or wrong) exactly matched the DNA found on the leggings?

The problem is the use of the word “match.” Unfortunately, there is a somewhat checkered history of that term as it relates to DNA evidence in this case. You clearly believe that “match” means a precise 10 for 10 loci match, but that was not the case, for example, with the so called “match” between the panty DNA and the fingernails.
"The DNA under her fingernails and on her underwear matched," says Osborn. "They belong to the same person. They don't belong to a member of her family or any of their friends, anybody that they've been able to identify yet. An intruder easily could have gotten into the house."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

Augustin and Gray, private detectives hired by John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999, are convinced the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/23/earlyshow/living/main662681.shtml

Unfortunately, we know that this is a case of 2 markers “matching” 10 markers.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition

No one, at any time, has indicated how many markers were found on the long johns, and to suggest that it was a perfect match is pure speculation.

Are you aware that the probability the CODIS DNA and the legging DNA are owned by different people is astronomically remote? This is a serious question that requires an intelligent response.

It depends on the level of “match.”

 

[UKGuy]

SD’s point is that we are dealing with a partial profile. A full profile is 13 markers, anything less is a partial profile.
Also, keep in mind that this is actually a 9 marker profile that had to have a judgment call made on the 10th marker in order to have it submitted to CODIS
In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODIS databank.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

In many cases when degradation is present, the analyst will not be able to obtain a full profile of 13 loci. When only a partial profile is obtained, the evidence is still useful to the prosecutor, but the prosecutor must be especially careful not to overstate the significance of the evidence.
…
Contamination is also a concern with all forensic evidence samples. Because of the nature of the evidence, samples can be contaminated by material from several sources, including the victim, the perpetrator and the people who handled and processed the evidence.
A Litigator's Guide to DNA, Michaelis, Flanders & Wulff, 2008
The problem is the use of the word “match.” Unfortunately, there is a somewhat checkered history of that term as it relates to DNA evidence in this case. You clearly believe that “match” means a precise 10 for 10 loci match, but that was not the case, for example, with the so called “match” between the panty DNA and the fingernails.
"The DNA under her fingernails and on her underwear matched," says Osborn. "They belong to the same person. They don't belong to a member of her family or any of their friends, anybody that they've been able to identify yet. An intruder easily could have gotten into the house."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

Augustin and Gray, private detectives hired by John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999, are convinced the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/23/earlyshow/living/main662681.shtml

Unfortunately, we know that this is a case of 2 markers “matching” 10 markers.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition

No one, at any time, has indicated how many markers were found on the long johns, and to suggest that it was a perfect match is pure speculation.
It depends on the level of “match.”

cynic,
Nice and concise, well put points. This absence of detail in the DNA matching between samples is indicative of the bias in the IDI camp.

Not unless you wish to assume that the intruder failed to remove his/her dna from the crime-scene as was intended via the removal of JonBenet's size-6 underwear, or like the CSI episodes maybe the size-6 underwear was just a little memento.


.

 

[BBB167893]

If you only knew...I can only hope that posterity will smile on our little exchange.

I know exactly what you mean.

Although I don't think the comparison between Lin and Jong-il is really fair. Has he ordered any kidnappings, on-the-spot executions, or plane bombings lately?

I wasn't speaking literally, HOTYH. I simply meant that in both cases, the media only present one viewpoint because someone is willing to use threats to get that result.

If I am to understand your posts, it seems that you would like to say that LW himself paid to have partial degraded 9 marker DNA placed into a minimum 10 marker CODIS system. Having bought his way in with this partial degraded unusable profile. Who was the paid off FBI agent?

I think your understanding of my posts is a bit lacking, my friend. I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm saying that no context is presented.

Didn't you read the part about 10 markers being significant?

I read it.

Wasn't that a DNA expert who said that?

A DNA expert who never worked on the case, HOTYH.

Why aren't you impressed that the 10 markers they placed in CODIS (right or wrong) exactly matched the DNA found on the leggings?

A couple of reasons. None of which you seem to be at all interested in.

Are you aware that the probability the CODIS DNA and the legging DNA are owned by different people is astronomically remote?

If what you say is true, then yes, I am aware.

This is a serious question that requires an intelligent response.

Well, HOTYH, I'm tempted to bring up all the times I've asked serious questions that require an intelligent response and I didn't get one, but I won't. I'll merely say this: your meaning is very clear, but perhaps mine is not.

There's no shortage of sources, I've shown them, and it seems you want to simply 'blame it all' on LW and ML. What about everyone else that is involved?

Don't misunderstand me, HOTYH. I'm trying to "blame it all" on anyone. In LW's case, his duty is to his clients, not necessarily to the truth. If he says something, I'm damn sure not just going to take his word for it.

As for ML, in her case, it's not the finding of the DNA I have a problem with. It's the way she put the cart before the horse. Her credibility has to be examined. That's not my fault.

I never knew that the response 'AHEM!' made statements go away or become impotent.

That was not my meaning, and I have a feeling you know that. I merely sought to point out that some of your sources are questionable, to be polite.

Maybe it does for your friends...

Well, if it does, I assure you it's because they get what I mean.

 

[BBB167893]

SD’s point is that we are dealing with a partial profile. A full profile is 13 markers, anything less is a partial profile.
Also, keep in mind that this is actually a 9 marker profile that had to have a judgment call made on the 10th marker in order to have it submitted to CODIS
In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODIS databank.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

In many cases when degradation is present, the analyst will not be able to obtain a full profile of 13 loci. When only a partial profile is obtained, the evidence is still useful to the prosecutor, but the prosecutor must be especially careful not to overstate the significance of the evidence.
…
Contamination is also a concern with all forensic evidence samples. Because of the nature of the evidence, samples can be contaminated by material from several sources, including the victim, the perpetrator and the people who handled and processed the evidence.
A Litigator's Guide to DNA, Michaelis, Flanders & Wulff, 2008
The problem is the use of the word “match.” Unfortunately, there is a somewhat checkered history of that term as it relates to DNA evidence in this case. You clearly believe that “match” means a precise 10 for 10 loci match, but that was not the case, for example, with the so called “match” between the panty DNA and the fingernails.
"The DNA under her fingernails and on her underwear matched," says Osborn. "They belong to the same person. They don't belong to a member of her family or any of their friends, anybody that they've been able to identify yet. An intruder easily could have gotten into the house."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

Augustin and Gray, private detectives hired by John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999, are convinced the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/23/earlyshow/living/main662681.shtml

Unfortunately, we know that this is a case of 2 markers “matching” 10 markers.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition

No one, at any time, has indicated how many markers were found on the long johns, and to suggest that it was a perfect match is pure speculation.
It depends on the level of “match.”

Seems some people are a bit quick to throw that word out there.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I know exactly what you mean. It doesn't seem so.

I wasn't speaking literally, HOTYH. I simply meant that in both cases, the media only present one viewpoint because someone is willing to use threats to get that result. The media in the US presents many viewpoints on a given issue. I see no evidence of intimidation. Do you believe the media is intimidated by threats from LW and so will only present IDI viewpoints? I still don't believe there's a valid comparison to Jong-il and his media.



A DNA expert who never worked on the case, HOTYH. Will all RDI experts who 'never worked on the case' please stand up? LOL



A couple of reasons. None of which you seem to be at all interested in.
Oh I'm interested in what you have to say, alright.


If what you say is true, then yes, I am aware. Oh, its true alright. CODIS has a 10 marker DNA sample (unless it was upgraded to the touch DNA). The markers from the CODIS sample match the touch DNA, according to many sources including the lab website.



Well, HOTYH, I'm tempted to bring up all the times I've asked serious questions that require an intelligent response and I didn't get one, but I won't. I'll merely say this: your meaning is very clear, but perhaps mine is not. Please provide your most serious unanswered question.



Don't misunderstand me, HOTYH. I'm trying to "blame it all" on anyone. In LW's case, his duty is to his clients, not necessarily to the truth. If he says something, I'm damn sure not just going to take his word for it. But nobody challenged it as a lie and he has no motive to lie. If he got caught in a public lie he'd be ruined. Besides what he said was validated by future developments e.g. CODIS and Bode.

As for ML, in her case, it's not the finding of the DNA I have a problem with. It's the way she put the cart before the horse. Her credibility has to be examined. That's not my fault. Her credibility is not relevant to all of the waistband DNA. Thats just your ad hominem.



That was not my meaning, and I have a feeling you know that. I merely sought to point out that some of your sources are questionable, to be polite. I appreciate that.



Well, if it does, I assure you it's because they get what I mean.

I was just saying that your expression 'AHEM' might impress your friends but has no argumentative value for me. Clearing your throat doesn't add to or subtract from anything.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"The DNA under her fingernails and on her underwear matched," says Osborn. "They belong to the same person. They don't belong to a member of her family or any of their friends, anybody that they've been able to identify yet. An intruder easily could have gotten into the house."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

Augustin and Gray, private detectives hired by John and Patsy Ramsey in 1999, are convinced the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/23/earlyshow/living/main662681.shtml

Unfortunately, we know that this is a case of 2 markers “matching” 10 markers.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition”

The DNA found in a swab taken from blood found on the inside crotch area
of JBR's underwear, the DNA found in two separate locations on JBR's waistband, and the DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails potentially match one another.

A match between all four (4) locations has not been ruled out, correct? A match between any one of these samples and any family member has been ruled out, right?

All of these potentially matching DNA samples are found in locations consistent with a sexual assault: inside crotch blood, waistband, and underneath fingernails. Right?

No one, at any time, has indicated how many markers were found on the long johns, and to suggest that it was a perfect match is pure speculation.”

I assumed since they had enough skin cell to produce a profile in the first place, in two locations, that it would be as complete a DNA profile as skin cells can provide.

 

[cynic]

The DNA found in a swab taken from blood found on the inside crotch area
of JBR's underwear, the DNA found in two separate locations on JBR's waistband, and the DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails potentially match one another.
A match between all four (4) locations has not been ruled out, correct? A match between any one of these samples and any family member has been ruled out, right?

My point is that two markers is not a “match.”
(You yourself, HOTYH, may have those two markers in your DNA profile.)
We know that the fingernail DNA has two markers and is obviously a severely degraded and essentially useless sample.
We know that the panty DNA has 9-10 markers, a partial profile.
No information has been released with respect to the amount of markers in the DNA found by Bode on the long johns.
That is the extent of what has been revealed with regard to the “quality” or lack thereof with respect to the DNA in this case.

All of these potentially matching DNA samples are found in locations consistent with a sexual assault: inside crotch blood, waistband, and underneath fingernails. Right?

It is also consistent with areas that a parent would have contacted as they dressed JonBenet, and therefore secondary transfer cannot be ruled out.

I assumed since they had enough skin cell to produce a profile in the first place, in two locations, that it would be as complete a DNA profile as skin cells can provide.

My view on the DNA obtained by Bode from the long johns is that it is 10 markers or less, because if it was more than 10 markers, they would have, in all likelihood, announced that they were upgrading the CODIS profile.
That being said, it could just as easily be 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 markers, who knows?
All I am saying is that given the history of the phrase “matching DNA,” we can’t assume much.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

My point is that two markers is not a “match.”
(You yourself, HOTYH, may have those two markers in your DNA profile.)
We know that the fingernail DNA has two markers and is obviously a severely degraded and essentially useless sample.
We know that the panty DNA has 9-10 markers, a partial profile.
No information has been released with respect to the amount of markers in the DNA found by Bode on the long johns.
That is the extent of what has been revealed with regard to the “quality” or lack thereof with respect to the DNA in this case.

It is also consistent with areas that a parent would have contacted as they dressed JonBenet, and therefore secondary transfer cannot be ruled out.

My view on the DNA obtained by Bode from the long johns is that it is 10 markers or less, because if it was more than 10 markers, they would have, in all likelihood, announced that they were upgrading the CODIS profile.
That being said, it could just as easily be 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 markers, who knows?
All I am saying is that given the history of the phrase “matching DNA,” we can’t assume much.

The underwear DNA is in CODIS. The touch DNA matches it. This we can assume. If we can't assume this much, we cant assume JBR was ever murdered. Do you believe JBR was murdered?

I was going to thank you for helping to characterize this murder in a way I hadn't before. Back in the 1990's DNA was known to educated people but maybe not some people. That is, the person who wasn't worried about handwriting was also not worried about trace DNA. It turns out to be a potentially messy crime scene, with DNA spread out all over the place. Mixed with blood in her underwear and under her fingernails shows a far more violent encounter than RDI has ever portrayed. Add to that the brutal weaponized strangulation and headbash by unknown means. Heck you don't even know why the brush was broken at both ends. RDI is just wrong, thats all. And you don't know this to not be true. I'd consider your argument if this DNA that they reported in the news were not of such high quality or not in locations that are directly related to a sexual assault.

In fact, if fiber evidence is admitted into this discussion, the DNA outweighs it as far as corroboration and matching is concerned. 10 markers of DNA is enough, thats why its in CODIS. Your 9 1/2 marker 'negotiation' is a claim. The sources I read stated clearly that the sample was of high quality, acceptable to CODIS, and BPD sat on it for 7 years and didn't even know it! The garrote entwined fiber and paint tote fiber don't even exist. There's no lab, no expert,and its not reported in the news.

 

[claudicici]

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101799a.htm
"But one outside attorney, former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman, focused on the mother's psyche at the time.

"Whoever did this crime was clearly disturbed,'' Silverman said. "(Patsy) was recovering from cancer, had the pressures of a family vacation, the pressures of a family Christmas, the pressure of turning 40 in a few days.'' Noting that the ransom note, paintbrush and sweater fiber evidence also pointed to the mother, Silverman said, "None of these things alone are smoking guns, but it's the totality of it.''

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is also consistent with areas that a parent would have contacted as they dressed JonBenet, and therefore secondary transfer cannot be ruled out.

What?

Since when is the inside crotch of underwear consistent with parent handling? Since when is underneath fingernails consistent with parent handling?

Where is the parental DNA on the waistband? It would've shown up also.

Nah, your idea doesn't wash. Doesn't stand up to a simple plausibility test. I don't buy it. Inside crotch and under fingernails have to be disregarded, as well as Bode not finding any parental DNA pretty much discounts this secondary transfer idea. Got another one?

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy said she put the longjohns on JB. We don't know if that happened as she was getting her ready for bed (as she said) or if the longjohns were part of redressing her after she was unconscious or dead. JR carried her body up holding her upright around the waist. BOTH parent's DNA should be there. But just because it hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't found.

And it is conceivable that a parent's fingers could come into contact with the crotch of panties if that parent is putting them on a child.

 

[BBB167893]

It doesn't seem so.

Then why not just say what you mean? I will: I believe history will be very kind to me, because I intend to write it.

The media in the US presents many viewpoints on a given issue.

Well, you might get some argument with some media outlets. They don't seem to present a fair and balanced take on this issue, though.

I see no evidence of intimidation.

I'm sure you don't.

Do you believe the media is intimidated by threats from LW and so will only present IDI viewpoints?

You damn betcha, man! And I'm not alone.

I still don't believe there's a valid comparison to Jong-il and his media.

I wasn't speaking literally, HOTYH. You brought up the comparison as a way to illustrate how the media reflects public opinion. Do you have any hard numbers on that? By that I mean, do you have any solid evidence that the majority of Americans are IDI? Because if you do, I'd sure like to see it.

Will all RDI experts who 'never worked on the case' please stand up? LOL

I admit, that's a good point. But I would make one critical distinction. Each of those RDI experts had an opposite number who DID work on the case. The ONLY expert you presented who claimed 10 markers to be highly significant never worked on the case. I'd like to hear what Henry Lee has to say.

Oh I'm interested in what you have to say, alright.

Glad to hear it.

Oh, its true alright. CODIS has a 10 marker DNA sample (unless it was upgraded to the touch DNA). The markers from the CODIS sample match the touch DNA, according to many sources including the lab website.

Like I said, HOTYH, I am willing to make some concessions.

Please provide your most serious unanswered question.

I usually start threads on them. They're easy to find.

But nobody challenged it as a lie and he has no motive to lie.

One, he has been challenged in the past on his claims about the DNA. Two, as for no motive to lie, you might get some argument there, but one has to wonder just how much knowledge he has about this case. It's been suggested that he keeps himself in the dark in order to avoid being caught making an out-and-out falsehood.

If he got caught in a public lie he'd be ruined.

Read Wendy Murphy's book sometime, HOTYH. She has some excellent material on him.

Besides what he said was validated by future developments e.g. CODIS and Bode.

We'll see.

Her credibility is not relevant to all of the waistband DNA. Thats just your ad hominem.

I think you misunderstood me, HOTYH. I wasn't referring to her in regard to the DNA, as such. I was referring to her decision to clear the Rs, which Mark Fuhrman himself described as absurd.

I appreciate that.

Good. I'll appreciate it if you remember it.

I was just saying that your expression 'AHEM' might impress your friends but has no argumentative value for me. Clearing your throat doesn't add to or subtract from anything.

I didn't need to add anything, HOTYH. You were making my points for me.

 

[BBB167893]

Mixed with blood in her underwear and under her fingernails shows a far more violent encounter than RDI has ever portrayed.

You're not going to start that bit, are you?

In fact, if fiber evidence is admitted into this discussion, the DNA outweighs it as far as corroboration and matching is concerned.

You wish. Problem with that thinking is that the fibers have something the DNA doesn't have: certainty of time. We KNOW the fibers came from that night. We DON'T know how old the DNA is.

The sources I read stated clearly that the sample was of high quality, acceptable to CODIS, and BPD sat on it for 7 years and didn't even know it!

I'd recheck those sources. Did wonders for me.

The garrote entwined fiber and paint tote fiber don't even exist.

Give. Me. A. Break.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy said she put the longjohns on JB. We don't know if that happened as she was getting her ready for bed (as she said) or if the longjohns were part of redressing her after she was unconscious or dead. JR carried her body up holding her upright around the waist. BOTH parent's DNA should be there. But just because it hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't found.

And it is conceivable that a parent's fingers could come into contact with the crotch of panties if that parent is putting them on a child.

DeeDee249,

Those were my thoughts also. The dna spoken about is touch dna, and by definition not semen. With semen dna Holdontoyourhat can infer intruder, and I would agree.

Holdontoyourhat big mistake is to assume:

The touch dna he cites, regardless of the correlation between the samples, belongs to the same person that killed JonBenet.

The person who killed JonBenet may have been Patsy it may have been John but touch dna transferred from one of them to JonBenet during the staging process.

The latter event is just as credible as Holdontoyourhat's thesis that the dna belongs to the killer. Where by definition touch dna can arrive from any third party, even forensic invetigators as they touch items, even whilst wearing those gloves or suits.

Holdontoyourhat's assertion that the touch dna found on JonBenet's clothing belongs to JonBenet's killer aka the Intruder is fallacious, and once again demonstrates the lack of critical reflection brought to bear on the IDI theory.

 

[MurriFlower]

Patsy said she put the longjohns on JB. We don't know if that happened as she was getting her ready for bed (as she said) or if the longjohns were part of redressing her after she was unconscious or dead. JR carried her body up holding her upright around the waist. BOTH parent's DNA should be there. But just because it hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't found.

And it is conceivable that a parent's fingers could come into contact with the crotch of panties if that parent is putting them on a child.

Correct me if I'm wrong all you DNA experts, but isn't 'secondary transfer' direct transfer from one person to another? If she transfered foreign DNA to the clothes, she would have had to contacted (shook hands) with an unknown someone directly before dressing her daughter. So, if you are putting this forward as a serious theory, then who was this mysterious person she got the DNA from?

 

[UKGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong all you DNA experts, but isn't 'secondary transfer' direct transfer from one person to another? If she transfered foreign DNA to the clothes, she would have had to contacted (shook hands) with an unknown someone directly before dressing her daughter. So, if you are putting this forward as a serious theory, then who was this mysterious person she got the DNA from?

MurriFlower,

I'm no dna expert the

mysterious person she got the DNA from?

could be anyone or any surface that already had the dna deposited on it. e.g. sink taps, toilet flushing handles, door handles, shaking hands etc, the list is endless. Check here for a forensic application of this process: http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=25197, here is an overview of touch dna or LCN: http://www.therestlesssleep.com/?p=478

It is not unknown for forensic investigators to inadvertently introduce touch dna onto objects in a crime-scene. e.g. not their own just dna already deposited on some object which naturally they do not know is there.


.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

I'm no dna expert the


could be anyone or any surface that already had the dna deposited on it. e.g. sink taps, toilet flushing handles, door handles, shaking hands etc, the list is endless. Check here for a forensic application of this process: http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=25197, here is an overview of touch dna or LCN: http://www.therestlesssleep.com/?p=478

It is not unknown for forensic investigators to inadvertently introduce touch dna onto objects in a crime-scene. e.g. not their own just dna already deposited on some object which naturally they do not know is there.
.

I believe that when a person takes DNA from an object that someone else has touched and then deposits it onto a third surface then this is not 'secondary' but 'tertiary' transfer. This is what you are suggesting. Secondary transfer would be a hand shake etc then deposit onto another surface. Tertiary transfer is someone touches a door handle, then another person touches the same door handle and then deposits some of the DNA onto another surface they touch subsequently. In laboratory conditions, it was not considered a viable way to contaminate DNA, but here you are suggesting that PR went from the Whites (who were all DNA tested I believe) to the Walkers and the Steins (again we assume all these were DNA tested) and at some time she touched a surface that an unknown person had also touched, came home and when putting longjohns on her daughter, deposited this foreign DNA from her hands onto several places on her daughter's clothing and underwear? Hmmmm a likely story!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat's assertion that the touch dna found on JonBenet's clothing belongs to JonBenet's killer aka the Intruder is fallacious, and once again demonstrates the lack of critical reflection brought to bear on the IDI theory.

MurriFlower,

I'm no dna expert the


could be anyone or any surface that already had the dna deposited on it. e.g. sink taps, toilet flushing handles, door handles, shaking hands etc, the list is endless. Check here for a forensic application of this process: http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=25197, here is an overview of touch dna or LCN: http://www.therestlesssleep.com/?p=478

It is not unknown for forensic investigators to inadvertently introduce touch dna onto objects in a crime-scene. e.g. not their own just dna already deposited on some object which naturally they do not know is there..

Critical reflection? I accuse noone of killing JBR while RDI goes on and on presenting myth, hype, and opinion as facts on how a specific person had a role in child murder. And I lack critical reflection?

What a joke that is. Especially now with evidence of an intruder smeared all over JBR's clothing.

Bode website clearly describes the touch DNA as NOT LCN (low copy number) DNA. There has to be a sufficient quantity of skin cells present to produce a profile. If there is more than one profile, it shows up also. The idea that PR or JR transmitted third party DNA to JBR without also depositing their own, or that Bode ignored positive PR or JR DNA, is absurd.

If anyone needs some critical reflection...