IDI: Whats your problem?

[cynic]

"Full Profile" is referenced at about 1 minute and 50 seconds into this video.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3908588/r...family-cleared

A reporter speaking live about something he knows nothing about, you will have to do better than that. He is mistakenly referring to the CODIS profile (from the panty DNA) as a full profile which we know is not true, because it has been referred to by several authoritative sources as 9-10 markers which is a partial profile. He refers to CODIS as what sounds like “codix.” – clearly well informed – lol.
I do hope that you paid close attention to the only expert that was interviewed in that segment, Michael Baden, who listed several innocent transfer possibilities for the DNA in the case.
As the study that I cited shows, partial profiles from touch DNA is the norm, In the absence of a description to the contrary from an official source, there is a far higher probability that the touch DNA is a partial profile.

Cynic, of course a full profile from touch DNA happens and happens more often than your post suggested. Its a function of how much contact and how sweaty the perpetrator was, plus other factors. IOW a perp can sometimes leave a boatload of skin cells, enough for regular DNA analysis.

I am aware of all the factors involved in transfer, and I am not suggesting that a touch DNA sample cannot produce a full profile. Evidence does suggest that it not the norm and we can certainly not assume a full profile is what we have here.

Matching DNA showing up on a swab from a blood stain in the underwear has to present something of a mental challenge to RDI--coming up with a plausible non-intruder explanation for the forensic evidence. I can understand why this DNA has to be challenged at all levels: partial degraded unusable DNA indirectly transferred by an innocent donor to the criminally relevant locations of a fake sexual assault and staged murder victim. But this presents a logic bomb because not all of this can be right simultaneously! Do you think?

The problem with your characterization is that you are referring to the problems with all of the DNA in the case and lumping them together. For example, the fingernail DNA is unquestionably “unusable” because it is severely degraded (down to 2 markers.). The panty DNA while degraded (because it did not produce a full 13 marker profile) is nonetheless definitely “usable.”
It would be as if we were talking about a red car, and blue truck and you said that I was talking about some sort of red and blue, half car, half truck hybrid.
One at time, there is no logic “bomb.”

 

[madeleine]

I guess it doesn't matter how many markers there are anyway if they will get a match and get the owner.It will matter though when they will take this DNA evidence to court, right?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A reporter speaking live about something he knows nothing about, you will have to do better than that. He is mistakenly referring to the CODIS profile (from the panty DNA) as a full profile which we know is not true, because it has been referred to by several authoritative sources as 9-10 markers which is a partial profile. He refers to CODIS as what sounds like “codix.” – clearly well informed – lol.
I do hope that you paid close attention to the only expert that was interviewed in that segment, Michael Baden, who listed several innocent transfer possibilities for the DNA in the case.
As the study that I cited shows, partial profiles from touch DNA is the norm, In the absence of a description to the contrary from an official source, there is a far higher probability that the touch DNA is a partial profile.
I am aware of all the factors involved in transfer, and I am not suggesting that a touch DNA sample cannot produce a full profile. Evidence does suggest that it not the norm and we can certainly not assume a full profile is what we have here.
The problem with your characterization is that you are referring to the problems with all of the DNA in the case and lumping them together. For example, the fingernail DNA is unquestionably “unusable” because it is severely degraded (down to 2 markers.). The panty DNA while degraded (because it did not produce a full 13 marker profile) is nonetheless definitely “usable.”
It would be as if we were talking about a red car, and blue truck and you said that I was talking about some sort of red and blue, half car, half truck hybrid.
One at time, there is no logic “bomb.”

I believe you're involved in semantics while I'm using the underwear and lonjohn DNA 'matching' statements to infer there is adequate information from the samples for technologists to be making such statements with a reasonable amount of certainty. I mean, matching is about all you can do with DNA anyway.

Semantics is nice, where we all understand how fallible everything is, and how nothing can be taken at face value. This is par for the course for RDI though. You wish to present a wide range of possible failures that would render the DNA useless. I've read about all these potential failures and mistakes in other cases. Thats fine and I won't argue the semantics with you.

However it brings me back to the logic bomb, where you had argued every possible weakness of the DNA, and I then argued the absurdity of fighting and expecting to win every single argument. That is, RDI can't expect to win the QUALITY, CONTEXT, and TRANSFER arguments simultaneously and maintain credibility, can they? Eventually people will see thru this to the underlying motives of simply arguing for RDI come-what-may.

RDI doesn't own the DNA evidence or the circumstances, and simply raising potential failures in every aspect seems more like whining since IDI now has more evidence and testimony to support its views.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe you're involved in semantics while I'm using the underwear and lonjohn DNA 'matching' statements to infer there is adequate information from the samples for technologists to be making such statements with a reasonable amount of certainty. I mean, matching is about all you can do with DNA anyway.

Semantics is nice, where we all understand how fallible everything is, and how nothing can be taken at face value. This is par for the course for RDI though. You wish to present a wide range of possible failures that would render the DNA useless. I've read about all these potential failures and mistakes in other cases. Thats fine and I won't argue the semantics with you.

However it brings me back to the logic bomb, where you had argued every possible weakness of the DNA, and I then argued the absurdity of fighting and expecting to win every single argument. That is, RDI can't expect to win the QUALITY, CONTEXT, and TRANSFER arguments simultaneously and maintain credibility, can they? Eventually people will see thru this to the underlying motives of simply arguing for RDI come-what-may.

RDI doesn't own the DNA evidence or the circumstances, and simply raising potential failures in every aspect seems more like whining since IDI now has more evidence and testimony to support its views.

Holdontoyourhat,

Well if you wish to opine on semantics thats fine but the actual semantics of the touch dna is that of unsourced e.g. Nobody Knows or semantically its meaningless.

Until its demonstrated as being foreign dna and matched with some suspect all the semantics and parsing of newspaper clippings over full, partial this or that is theory grandstanding whilst in reality you know no more than someone new to the JonBenet thread.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Well if you wish to opine on semantics thats fine but the actual semantics of the touch dna is that of unsourced e.g. Nobody Knows or semantically its meaningless.


.

Tell that to the lab technicians who genuinely believe today that they discovered the DNA of JBR's killer. Can you imagine a lab testing a swab from a inside crotch area blood stain, and two scrapings from opposite sides of a waistband, fully expecting to see JBR, PR, or JR DNA and instead finding the DNA from the same unknown male in all three places? They had to be very excited.

Here's you: "its meaningless".

Here's what I'd do. Why not open up a little and consider the opposite end of the spectrum. Since they have a bunch of skin cells, enough to produce two separate but matching profiles, lets assume they have not just 10 or 13 markers but the complete DNA. I read that this touch DNA was processed and analyzed like blood or semen DNA. What could the lab potentially know about this DNA owner and not tell the public? The 13 markers deliberately avoid markers that identify race and other factors. Why doesn't Bode have 30+ markers?

 

[UKGuy]

Tell that to the lab technicians who genuinely believe today that they discovered the DNA of JBR's killer. Can you imagine a lab testing a swab from a inside crotch area blood stain, and two scrapings from opposite sides of a waistband, fully expecting to see JBR, PR, or JR DNA and instead finding the DNA from the same unknown male in all three places? They had to be very excited.

Here's you: "its meaningless".

Here's what I'd do. Why not open up a little and consider the opposite end of the spectrum. Since they have a bunch of skin cells, enough to produce two separate but matching profiles, lets assume they have not just 10 or 13 markers but the complete DNA. I read that this touch DNA was processed and analyzed like blood or semen DNA. What could the lab potentially know about this DNA owner and not tell the public? The 13 markers deliberately avoid markers that identify race and other factors. Why doesn't Bode have 30+ markers?

Holdontoyourhat,

open up a little, sure once they have a match, and its demonstrated its foreign dna , otherwise its only meaning is that which you want to give it, negative or positive.

I'd like nothing better if a suspect was arrested and charged either by dna matching or good old interview techniques, but until that happens the best game in town by far is RDI.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wouldn't it be great of they could pull a "Jurassic Park" stunt and CLONE the skin cells from the touch DNA to "grow" the donor? Then we'd KNOW who it was! (of course, the clone would be a baby, so we'd have to wait a bit till it grew up.

 

[MurriFlower]

Wouldn't it be great of they could pull a "Jurassic Park" stunt and CLONE the skin cells from the touch DNA to "grow" the donor? Then we'd KNOW who it was! (of course, the clone would be a baby, so we'd have to wait a bit till it grew up.

This probably deserves a thread of it's own.

BUT just say it was possible.

We would have to then wait till the child grew up and see who it looked like. That would be fine if the person was known to someone and was still alive. If that person had died or could not be found, would we then be left with a genetic homicidal maniac in our midst? Or would a different upbringing cancel out the genetic tendency to torture and kill someone.

Hang on...... you guys would still argue that this person MAY NOT BE THE KILLER!! That he was a panty factory worker or that the DNA came from a doorknob transferred from PR to the clothing.

Nah, it wouldn't solve anything, just make it more complicated. I bet he'd grow up RDI too LOL.

 

[UKGuy]

Wouldn't it be great of they could pull a "Jurassic Park" stunt and CLONE the skin cells from the touch DNA to "grow" the donor? Then we'd KNOW who it was! (of course, the clone would be a baby, so we'd have to wait a bit till it grew up.

DeeDee249

Not really if its the proverbial asian underwear handler, the babies facial profile would place the R's right back in the frame.

The options on this one seem limited to me.

1. the dna belongs to an intruder

2. the dna belongs to a Ramsey assistant e.g. remember John's remarks about it being busy at 4am or something.

3. the dna is touch dna transferred by either Patsy or John when redressing JonBenet prior to administering the fatal injury.

Not mentioned by anyone is , is the alleged foreign touch dna mixed at any point, similar to dna mixed into the blood stain on the size-12's, with either John's or Patsy's dna, thereby suggesting they could have transferred the touch dna?

Whilst it might not prove much it might eliminate say John as being the person who inflicted the final injury.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, it would be possible to tell the race at once, and also get a COMPLETE DNA profile. Then, comparing that to DNA profiles already taken, we could rule out many people. Santa, LHP's husband, etc.
As far as having another homicidal maniac in our midst- well, ML brought back JMK, so I suppose we'd be in that same boat.

Anyone remember "The Boys From Brazil"? For all who haven't seen it, you should. A chilling side to Jurassic Park's "family -oriented" terror. We'd be better off with the T-Rex.

 

[DeeDee249]

As far as the lab techs being "sure" they found the DNA of the killer- unless they were also eye-witnesses to the killing, NO ONE can say it is the DNA of the killer. It is the DNA of someone other than JB or her family. That is all. Even if that DNA belongs to someone who was in the house that night, intruder or not, that doesn't mean they were in the room when she was killed or that they killed her. That DNA doesn't place someone at the scene of the crime (her death, not the house) because it is not found anywhere else at the scene. Only on her clothes, NOT on her body, doorknob, suitcase handle, paint tote or paintbrushes, tape, garrote, white blanket, etc. Speaking of the blanket, someone involved with the crime had to have pulled that blanket over her AFTER she was dead. If they left DNA on the clothing, they were NOT wearing gloves. I doubt they'd wear gloves to wrap her in a blanket and not wear them as they actually handled her body or killed her. If it is on the blanket, then it brings the DNA into the crime scene. While it is only on the BODY, it may have been left while she was alive, and as PATSY says, if JB put those huge panties on herself, the DNA may not have had anything to do with the crime at all.
Here's a thought- let's say that JB was awake when she got home, not asleep. Let's say that she dressed herself in both the panties and the longjohns. After all, the parents' DNA was not mentioned as being found on the longjohns, though both parents said they touched them (Patsy when she claims to have put them on a sleeping JB and JR when he carried her body up from the basement). So let's say for argument's sake that she dressed herself. IF that DNA found its way onto her hands at the White's, that is a plausible explanation, IMO, for the DNA to be found there and no where else at the crime scene.

 

[claudicici]

....I just don't understand how this DNA is supposed to "clear" the Ramsey's one way or the other.If this DNA belonged to one of the Ramsey's it certainly would not convict them or make them more guilty....there are many innocent reasons why there would be Ramsey DNA on JB,so if it can't convict them how can it clear them?

 

[cynic]

As far as the lab techs being "sure" they found the DNA of the killer- unless they were also eye-witnesses to the killing, NO ONE can say it is the DNA of the killer. It is the DNA of someone other than JB or her family. That is all. Even if that DNA belongs to someone who was in the house that night, intruder or not, that doesn't mean they were in the room when she was killed or that they killed her. That DNA doesn't place someone at the scene of the crime (her death, not the house) because it is not found anywhere else at the scene. Only on her clothes, NOT on her body, doorknob, suitcase handle, paint tote or paintbrushes, tape, garrote, white blanket, etc. Speaking of the blanket, someone involved with the crime had to have pulled that blanket over her AFTER she was dead. If they left DNA on the clothing, they were NOT wearing gloves. I doubt they'd wear gloves to wrap her in a blanket and not wear them as they actually handled her body or killed her. If it is on the blanket, then it brings the DNA into the crime scene. While it is only on the BODY, it may have been left while she was alive, and as PATSY says, if JB put those huge panties on herself, the DNA may not have had anything to do with the crime at all.
Here's a thought- let's say that JB was awake when she got home, not asleep. Let's say that she dressed herself in both the panties and the longjohns. After all, the parents' DNA was not mentioned as being found on the longjohns, though both parents said they touched them (Patsy when she claims to have put them on a sleeping JB and JR when he carried her body up from the basement). So let's say for argument's sake that she dressed herself. IF that DNA found its way onto her hands at the White's, that is a plausible explanation, IMO, for the DNA to be found there and no where else at the crime scene.

Excellent points.

 

[DeeDee249]

....I just don't understand how this DNA is supposed to "clear" the Ramsey's one way or the other.If this DNA belonged to one of the Ramsey's it certainly would not convict them or make them more guilty....there are many innocent reasons why there would be Ramsey DNA on JB,so if it can't convict them how can it clear them?

It can't.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

....I just don't understand how this DNA is supposed to "clear" the Ramsey's one way or the other.If this DNA belonged to one of the Ramsey's it certainly would not convict them or make them more guilty....there are many innocent reasons why there would be Ramsey DNA on JB,so if it can't convict them how can it clear them?

I suggest considering the context because its the context that cleared the R's.

If an investigator wanted to find PR's DNA on JBR, maybe they would look for it on her cheek. If they found it, then the original hypothesis that PR kissed JBR on the cheek would be supported.

Likewise, if an investigator wanted to find a criminal's DNA on JBR, you would expect them to look for it on items they ALREADY KNOW were handled by a criminal. If they found some, then the original hypothesis that a criminal handled JBR's waistband would be supported. Only now, we know the criminal DNA is not owned by PR but by an unknown male.

The DNA on the waistband and in the underwear are probably owned by a criminal because we know a criminal went thru there and would probably leave this trace. If the DNA was owned by PR, she would've been arrested and charged and there is no doubt about this.

 

[claudicici]

I don't understand and I don't believe PR would have been arrested if that was her DNA.
She is her mother.She helped her wipe.She dressed her.She undressed her.
There's 100 of reasons why PR's DNA would be in that underwear,under JB's nails,anywhere....
I don't understand why a criminal would "probably" leave this trace.

 

[UKGuy]

I suggest considering the context because its the context that cleared the R's.

If an investigator wanted to find PR's DNA on JBR, maybe they would look for it on her cheek. If they found it, then the original hypothesis that PR kissed JBR on the cheek would be supported.

Likewise, if an investigator wanted to find a criminal's DNA on JBR, you would expect them to look for it on items they ALREADY KNOW were handled by a criminal. If they found some, then the original hypothesis that a criminal handled JBR's waistband would be supported. Only now, we know the criminal DNA is not owned by PR but by an unknown male.

The DNA on the waistband and in the underwear are probably owned by a criminal because we know a criminal went thru there and would probably leave this trace. If the DNA was owned by PR, she would've been arrested and charged and there is no doubt about this.

Holdontoyourhat,

If an investigator wanted to find PR's DNA on JBR, maybe they would look for it on her cheek. If they found it, then the original hypothesis that PR kissed JBR on the cheek would be supported.

Excellent , as you say hypothesis supported.

Likewise, if an investigator wanted to find a criminal's DNA on JBR, you would expect them to look for it on items they ALREADY KNOW were handled by a criminal. If they found some, then the original hypothesis that a criminal handled JBR's waistband would be supported.

Poor reasoning e.g. fallacious. The original hypothesis is not supported because you cannot demonstrate that the dna discovered was deposited by said criminal it may be innocent touch dna.

By your own reasoning you must explain why there is not touch dna on any other artifact discovered at the crime scene matching that of the longjohns and size-12's.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I suggest considering the context because its the context that cleared the R's.

If an investigator wanted to find PR's DNA on JBR, maybe they would look for it on her cheek. If they found it, then the original hypothesis that PR kissed JBR on the cheek would be supported.

Likewise, if an investigator wanted to find a criminal's DNA on JBR, you would expect them to look for it on items they ALREADY KNOW were handled by a criminal. If they found some, then the original hypothesis that a criminal handled JBR's waistband would be supported. Only now, we know the criminal DNA is not owned by PR but by an unknown male.

The DNA on the waistband and in the underwear are probably owned by a criminal because we know a criminal went thru there and would probably leave this trace. If the DNA was owned by PR, she would've been arrested and charged and there is no doubt about this.

Holdontoyourhat,

The DNA on the waistband and in the underwear are probably owned by a criminal because we know a criminal went thru there and would probably leave this trace. If the DNA was owned by PR, she would've been arrested and charged and there is no doubt about this.

The operative word here is probably since you do not know if the touch dna on the longjohns and size-12's belongs to the same person who killed JonBenet, it might, it might not. Furthermore it is very likely there will be a lot of touch dna from Patsy on JonBenet including her longjohns and size-12's, so finding Patsy's dna on JonBenet would not lead to arrest and charging.

The touch dna is meaningless until someone is matched to it !

.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't understand and I don't believe PR would have been arrested if that was her DNA.
She is her mother.She helped her wipe.She dressed her.She undressed her.
There's 100 of reasons why PR's DNA would be in that underwear,under JB's nails,anywhere....
I don't understand why a criminal would "probably" leave this trace.

claudicici,

I agree with you 100%, Patsy's dna should be all over JonBenet. Holdontoyourhat is correct though in suggesting that if the touch dna on JonBenet is matched to someone, e.g. not a resident Ramsey, then that person would likely be arrested and potentially charged with homicide etc.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

By your own reasoning you must explain why there is not touch dna on any other artifact discovered at the crime scene matching that of the longjohns and size-12's.

.

Just while we are on the size 12s. Where is it written there were oversized panties on JBR? I've always accepted it as truth, although I've never seen a source. I suppose it's STs book again?