IDI: Whats your problem?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I would suggest you do exactly that, HOTYH. If anything, it would further illustrate the problems in this one.

What problems? The only problem I'm aware of is a guilty unknown male walks free. Find the owner of the DNA and you've found JBR's killer. There is doubt on this only among the irrational and the hell-bent.

Besides, simply posting DNA case after DNA case, in bulk as has been done with the secondary transfer scenarios with the assertion that secondary transfer applies in this case, amounts to spamming or coverup. It could be a coverup because the direct transfer scenario isn't being presented along with these bulk secondary transfer or contamination postings.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I certainly would be, IF not for the context.

Or if PR jacket fiber in the tote box was even real. Its single-sourced, and you have to admit investigators sometimes lie. They were obvioiusly attempting to convince PR they had smoking gun evidence of PR's involvement in murder. Why is this fiber evidence not discussed by experts, the media, or a forensic lab? If this evidence is so damning, why can't you source it past these interviews where they were obviously telling PR lies? Good luck with that...

There is no paint tote containing PR jacket fibers.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmm the housekeeper reported this huh? Is this the same one who said PR discussed her sex life with her in graphic detail and asked for her advice?? She is an unreliable source IMO.



Hmm again. I hadn't thought of this. So you reckon LE didn't find any size 12 panties? Were these panties actually labelled size 12 or were they really L (for Large) as per the Bloomingdales sizing chart I posted? Large is for sizes 10-12 which fit girls aged 8 to 10 years. Perhaps they were confused as you seem to be about the size.

Was JBR reduced to wearing these large panties because all the ones in her drawer were dirty?? Why might they be dirty?? Either they had been put back without being washed, or they hadn't been washed thoroughly. Now who was responsible for this do you think?? Someone who reckoned that girls that age should learn to be clean so if they think I'm going to wash her sh**y panties, they've got another thing coming........

BUT it does raise another issue. IF it is as you say, and they didn't find any of the 6 others in this set (regardless of whether they had Size 12 or Large written on them), you then have to wonder just where they went? Please, don't say PP took them in the golf bag, cause it's already overflowing LOL. I'm thinking that the old LE might have been telling a few 'porky pies' again, trying to trip up PR. Or, did someone else take them for their own larger child?



Hmm (doing a lot of this today). I'd be interested to know if these panties she had on had ever been washed? LE should have been able to test for detergent residue as opposed to the residue from new-out-of-the-box ones. Of course PR would identify them as the ones she bought, because she bought them. BUT did they always stay in the house? It's a bit like the flashlight. It certainly looked like the one JAR bought his father, but JR said it was 'dirty'. Maybe it was taken, used and brought back that night? Maybe the panties were taken, used, then brought back too.



Not too sure about the theory of redressing due to the panties being bloodied. I'm thinking they would have been pulled down before the blood flowed and not pulled up again until after she was wiped and dead and therefore no more blood. Still it's food for thought. If you think the panties should have been bloodied, then why not the longjohns as well?

I am NOT confused abut the size at all, so don't know where you got that impression. It is in the interview transcripts that police told Patsy that NO other panties size 12 were found. As far as I know, the panties were labeled size 12 (Child's). Those kinds of panty sets are usually sold in a variety of children's sizes 2-3, 4-6, 6-8, 8-10, 12-14. Girls' sizes usually stop at size 12-14, then smaller women's sizes begin. Women's panty sizes run differently. There are sometimes S, M, and L. But most women's panties are sized beginning with adult size 5, then 6,7,8,9,10,11,12. A woman who wears a size 12 panty would be a VERY large plus-size woman. The panty size 12 (adult) does not coincide with a woman's dress or slacks size 12.
While it was certainly possible for the panties to have been tested for detergent residue (actually, I had discussed this here a long time ago,before you came here) I doubt they were. I had not seen anything indicating that. As far as I know, they were taken right out of the package.
I doubt all JB's panties were dirty, LHP had been there just 2 days earlier, and one of her jobs was laundry. The police said in their interviews that JB's panties were all stained with fecal staining. Doesn't mean they hadn't been laundered. But if they were not pre-treated or washed with bleach, those stains wound not come out in the wash. Many girl's panties are colored prints, and if they were bleached, the prints and colors would fade, maybe that's why they weren't.
I think she was wearing the big panties because they were right there in the basement when they were needed, and therefore it was unnecessary to go upstairs to find a clean pair of her own. This would be problematic for an intruder, who would not be familiar with where she kept her underwear, as it was in an unusual place, and would not know there was a new gift set of panties right there in the basement.
I think it is as ludicrous to believe someone took the panties out of the house (they had been wrapped, remember, and no stranger would know that) and brought them back as it is for the R's to say that the flashlight that looked like theirs but wasn't because it was "dirty" (because it was taken out and brought back). Just how many times would this SFF have come and gone from the house unnoticed?
As far as why the longjohns were not bloodied, my theory is that they were removed for whatever caused the vaginal bleeding. There was blood (though a small amount) found inside her vaginal area (on the forchette) and in other places as well as traces of her own blood found having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. SOMETHING made her bleed there, as 6-year old girls do not menstruate, and the coroner stated all her reproductive organs were pre-pubescent. THAT is what is a puzzle. Was it a too-thorough cleaning after soiling? Or was it a sexual assault. That is one of the problems I have personally with this case. If it was a sexual assault, I really can't see Patsy as the abuser. I can see the brother(s). I can see JR, possibly. And yes, here are a limited number of others I can consider. But if it was sexual abuse and not vigorous douching (which is only Patsy, IMO), it also raises the questions of the paintbrush. Was it inserted AS the assault, or was it inserted as a coverup for either the douching or digital penetration (as Mayer suggested to Det. Arndt he thought was the cause of her injuries).

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmm the housekeeper reported this huh? Is this the same one who said PR discussed her sex life with her in graphic detail and asked for her advice?? She is an unreliable source IMO.



Hmm again. I hadn't thought of this. So you reckon LE didn't find any size 12 panties? Were these panties actually labelled size 12 or were they really L (for Large) as per the Bloomingdales sizing chart I posted? Large is for sizes 10-12 which fit girls aged 8 to 10 years. Perhaps they were confused as you seem to be about the size.

Was JBR reduced to wearing these large panties because all the ones in her drawer were dirty?? Why might they be dirty?? Either they had been put back without being washed, or they hadn't been washed thoroughly. Now who was responsible for this do you think?? Someone who reckoned that girls that age should learn to be clean so if they think I'm going to wash her sh**y panties, they've got another thing coming........

BUT it does raise another issue. IF it is as you say, and they didn't find any of the 6 others in this set (regardless of whether they had Size 12 or Large written on them), you then have to wonder just where they went? Please, don't say PP took them in the golf bag, cause it's already overflowing LOL. I'm thinking that the old LE might have been telling a few 'porky pies' again, trying to trip up PR. Or, did someone else take them for their own larger child?



Hmm (doing a lot of this today). I'd be interested to know if these panties she had on had ever been washed? LE should have been able to test for detergent residue as opposed to the residue from new-out-of-the-box ones. Of course PR would identify them as the ones she bought, because she bought them. BUT did they always stay in the house? It's a bit like the flashlight. It certainly looked like the one JAR bought his father, but JR said it was 'dirty'. Maybe it was taken, used and brought back that night? Maybe the panties were taken, used, then brought back too.



Not too sure about the theory of redressing due to the panties being bloodied. I'm thinking they would have been pulled down before the blood flowed and not pulled up again until after she was wiped and dead and therefore no more blood. Still it's food for thought. If you think the panties should have been bloodied, then why not the longjohns as well?

I am NOT confused abut the size at all, so don't know where you got that impression. It is in the interview transcripts that police told Patsy that NO other panties size 12 were found. As far as I know, the panties were labeled size 12 (Child's). Those kinds of panty sets are usually sold in a variety of children's sizes 2-3, 4-6, 6-8, 8-10, 12-14. Girls' sizes usually stop at size 12-14, then smaller women's sizes begin. Women's panty sizes run differently. There are sometimes S, M, and L. But most women's panties are sized beginning with adult size 5, then 6,7,8,9,10,11,12. A woman who wears a size 12 panty would be a VERY large plus-size woman. The panty size 12 (adult) does not coincide with a woman's dress or slacks size 12.
While it was certainly possible for the panties to have been tested for detergent residue (actually, I had discussed this here a long time ago,before you came here) I doubt they were. I had not seen anything indicating that. As far as I know, they were taken right out of the package.
I doubt all JB's panties were dirty, LHP had been there just 2 days earlier, and one of her jobs was laundry. The police said in their interviews that JB's panties were all stained with fecal staining. Doesn't mean they hadn't been laundered. But if they were not pre-treated or washed with bleach, those stains wound not come out in the wash. Many girl's panties are colored prints, and if they were bleached, the prints and colors would fade, maybe that's why they weren't.
I think she was wearing the big panties because they were right there in the basement when they were needed, and therefore it was unnecessary to go upstairs to find a clean pair of her own. This would be problematic for an intruder, who would not be familiar with where she kept her underwear, as it was in an unusual place, and would not know there was a new gift set of panties right there in the basement.
I think it is as ludicrous to believe someone took the panties out of the house (they had been wrapped, remember, and no stranger would know that) and brought them back as it is for the R's to say that the flashlight that looked like theirs but wasn't because it was "dirty" (because it was taken out and brought back). Just how many times would this SFF have come and gone from the house unnoticed?
As far as why the longjohns were not bloodied, my theory is that they were removed for whatever caused the vaginal bleeding. There was blood (though a small amount) found inside her vaginal area (on the forchette) and in other places as well as traces of her own blood found having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. SOMETHING made her bleed there, as 6-year old girls do not menstruate, and the coroner stated all her reproductive organs were pre-pubescent. THAT is what is a puzzle. Was it a too-thorough cleaning after soiling? Or was it a sexual assault. That is one of the problems I have personally with this case. If it was a sexual assault, I really can't see Patsy as the abuser. I can see the brother(s). I can see JR, possibly. And yes, here are a limited number of others I can consider. But if it was sexual abuse and not vigorous douching (which is only Patsy, IMO), it also raises the questions of the paintbrush. Was it inserted AS the assault, or was it inserted as a coverup for either the douching or digital penetration (as Mayer suggested to Det. Arndt he thought was the cause of her injuries).

 

[UKGuy]

Here is your assumption: the underwear DNA is from the underwear. The forensic workers took a swab from a fresh blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear, and within the solution they found DNA from an unknown male. RDI ASSUMES that the DNA is secondary worker underwear handler DNA, and disregards the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the DNA was discovered. As if there was no distinction between the blood spot and any other location on the underwear.

There's no difference between my claim that tote fibers don't exist, and your claim that the DNA was ever part of the underwear and the blood just so happened to land on it.

Holdontoyourhat,

Here is your assumption: the underwear DNA is from the underwear.

No. Do you ever read my posts? The touch-dna e.g. it is not DNA, originates from the person who packed the gifts at FAO Schwartz for Patsy, and that that touch-dna was deposited on the gift-wrapping paper, which the person who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's then transferred to said locations, probably wearing gloves.

For your delectation Holdontoyourhat
FAO Schwartz is a gift-wrapping service that was used by Patsy on her NY trip.

Ramsey warrant dated December 26, 1996
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-2.html
This warrant itemises:
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (55KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (56KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (57KKY)

disregards the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the DNA was discovered. As if there was no distinction between the blood spot and any other location on the underwear.

So there is a transfer of touch-dna e.g. not DNA as you describe it, from the gift-wrapping paper to the size-12's, which once on JonBenet become stained from a post-mortem release of blood, or even just after JonBenet was assaulted internally.

What is the big deal about this blood-spot, how do you know its origin, or its relation to the touch-dna, they may be independent factors, how can you tell?

You are just making it all up to sound as if the the IDI has some gravity, citing DNA when you should really be saying touch-dna, obviously you are like the Ramseys and the DA trying to confuse those new to the case with psuedo-scientific talk of DNA this, relative probability, likely this and that. Still we have no numbers for the probabilities, no research cited, zilch, zero, nothing!

I'll keep stating it that there is zero forensic evidence to support an IDI theory. That is because your magic DNA is actually touch-dna, which can have multiple points of origin, and may not even belong to the same person who killed JonBenet.

Your theory should really be named HPDI e.g. Harry Potter Did It because you rely on so many magical and uncorroborated items.


.

 

[UKGuy]

The handwriting and DNA are forensic evidence and they aren't owned by anyone who lives there. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it so.

Holdontoyourhat,

Oh, but it does because your magical DNA, which in the real world is actually touch-dna, can have many points of origin, so until there is a match, it has no meaning e.g. it has zero evidentiary value.

same goes for your handwriting which also has zero evidentiary value, since there is no one procedure for evaluating handwriting. So in a court of law it would be left to the expert witness to influence a jury.

An IDI based upon touch-dna is very very weak indeed!


.

 

[UKGuy]

I am NOT confused abut the size at all, so don't know where you got that impression. It is in the interview transcripts that police told Patsy that NO other panties size 12 were found. As far as I know, the panties were labeled size 12 (Child's). Those kinds of panty sets are usually sold in a variety of children's sizes 2-3, 4-6, 6-8, 8-10, 12-14. Girls' sizes usually stop at size 12-14, then smaller women's sizes begin. Women's panty sizes run differently. There are sometimes S, M, and L. But most women's panties are sized beginning with adult size 5, then 6,7,8,9,10,11,12. A woman who wears a size 12 panty would be a VERY large plus-size woman. The panty size 12 (adult) does not coincide with a woman's dress or slacks size 12.
While it was certainly possible for the panties to have been tested for detergent residue (actually, I had discussed this here a long time ago,before you came here) I doubt they were. I had not seen anything indicating that. As far as I know, they were taken right out of the package.
I doubt all JB's panties were dirty, LHP had been there just 2 days earlier, and one of her jobs was laundry. The police said in their interviews that JB's panties were all stained with fecal staining. Doesn't mean they hadn't been laundered. But if they were not pre-treated or washed with bleach, those stains wound not come out in the wash. Many girl's panties are colored prints, and if they were bleached, the prints and colors would fade, maybe that's why they weren't.
I think she was wearing the big panties because they were right there in the basement when they were needed, and therefore it was unnecessary to go upstairs to find a clean pair of her own. This would be problematic for an intruder, who would not be familiar with where she kept her underwear, as it was in an unusual place, and would not know there was a new gift set of panties right there in the basement.
I think it is as ludicrous to believe someone took the panties out of the house (they had been wrapped, remember, and no stranger would know that) and brought them back as it is for the R's to say that the flashlight that looked like theirs but wasn't because it was "dirty" (because it was taken out and brought back). Just how many times would this SFF have come and gone from the house unnoticed?
As far as why the longjohns were not bloodied, my theory is that they were removed for whatever caused the vaginal bleeding. There was blood (though a small amount) found inside her vaginal area (on the forchette) and in other places as well as traces of her own blood found having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. SOMETHING made her bleed there, as 6-year old girls do not menstruate, and the coroner stated all her reproductive organs were pre-pubescent. THAT is what is a puzzle. Was it a too-thorough cleaning after soiling? Or was it a sexual assault. That is one of the problems I have personally with this case. If it was a sexual assault, I really can't see Patsy as the abuser. I can see the brother(s). I can see JR, possibly. And yes, here are a limited number of others I can consider. But if it was sexual abuse and not vigorous douching (which is only Patsy, IMO), it also raises the questions of the paintbrush. Was it inserted AS the assault, or was it inserted as a coverup for either the douching or digital penetration (as Mayer suggested to Det. Arndt he thought was the cause of her injuries).

DeeDee249,

And yes, here are a limited number of others I can consider. But if it was sexual abuse and not vigorous douching (which is only Patsy, IMO), it also raises the questions of the paintbrush. Was it inserted AS the assault, or was it inserted as a coverup for either the douching or digital penetration (as Mayer suggested to Det. Arndt he thought was the cause of her injuries).

Dr. Meyer opines that both digital penetration and sexual contact. had taken place.



Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997

Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair found on the outside of the shirt

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Vigorous douching may also have taken place but that would be independent of the penetration and sexual contact.

Also an assault using the paintbrush handle cannot be described as digital.

And ...
Rocky Mountain News

BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''

There is no requirement to mask douching since that can be blamed on the intruder, but a prior molestation that some Ramsey knew would be evident once an autopsy took place, did need to be masked e.g. probably by Patsy by using the painbrush handle?

And if not Patsy then enter a male Ramsey with all implications that follow.

From all the available circumstantial evidence I reckon Patsy knew JonBenet was being molested, and that she was a party to an attempted cover up, via the crime-scene staging e.g. the ethereal intruder.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

I am NOT confused abut the size at all, so don't know where you got that impression. It is in the interview transcripts that police told Patsy that NO other panties size 12 were found. As far as I know, the panties were labeled size 12 (Child's). Those kinds of panty sets are usually sold in a variety of children's sizes 2-3, 4-6, 6-8, 8-10, 12-14. Girls' sizes usually stop at size 12-14, then smaller women's sizes begin. Women's panty sizes run differently. There are sometimes S, M, and L. But most women's panties are sized beginning with adult size 5, then 6,7,8,9,10,11,12. A woman who wears a size 12 panty would be a VERY large plus-size woman. The panty size 12 (adult) does not coincide with a woman's dress or slacks size 12.

DD, I posted the link to the Bloomingdales childrens underwear sizes. You obviously did not look at it. Size 12 is not for a 12 year old. The underwear sets come in S, M & L.

While it was certainly possible for the panties to have been tested for detergent residue (actually, I had discussed this here a long time ago,before you came here) I doubt they were. I had not seen anything indicating that. As far as I know, they were taken right out of the package.
.

Then the opened package with the remaining 6 pairs intact would have been found in the wine cellar.

I doubt all JB's panties were dirty, LHP had been there just 2 days earlier, and one of her jobs was laundry. The police said in their interviews that JB's panties were all stained with fecal staining. Doesn't mean they hadn't been laundered. But if they were not pre-treated or washed with bleach, those stains wound not come out in the wash. Many girl's panties are colored prints, and if they were bleached, the prints and colors would fade, maybe that's why they weren't.

UkGuy: She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

Most of the panties were in JBrs dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material. Not 'stained' . Exactly what I said, the person whose job it was to wash her underwear either did not do it or did not do it correctly. The poor child probably had to open up a new packet to find something clean to wear.

I think she was wearing the big panties because they were right there in the basement when they were needed, and therefore it was unnecessary to go upstairs to find a clean pair of her own. This would be problematic for an intruder, who would not be familiar with where she kept her underwear, as it was in an unusual place, and would not know there was a new gift set of panties right there in the basement.

Now you've confused me. Are you saying JBR put these panties on herself after she was sexually assaulted in the basement but before her murder?? If so, we still have the little problem of the bloodied panties disappearing, to add to the disappearance of the remainder of the Bloomingdales panties and packet and wrapping.

I think it is as ludicrous to believe someone took the panties out of the house (they had been wrapped, remember, and no stranger would know that) and brought them back as it is for the R's to say that the flashlight that looked like theirs but wasn't because it was "dirty" (because it was taken out and brought back). Just how many times would this SFF have come and gone from the house unnoticed?

No, it is YOU who are saying they had been wrapped and placed in the basement. PR said they were in JBRs drawer. I know it sounds rather weird to think someone took them and the flashlight, but as you know there were items from the house found in LHP's (notepaper, pens) these are items that were implicated in the crime (RN). So it's no leap to assume that she may have 'borrowed' other things from the Rs. They wouldn't notice and if they did, she could have them magically appear again. Wouldn't be the first time a domestic worker pilfered from their boss.

As far as why the longjohns were not bloodied, my theory is that they were removed for whatever caused the vaginal bleeding. There was blood (though a small amount) found inside her vaginal area (on the forchette) and in other places as well as traces of her own blood found having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. SOMETHING made her bleed there, as 6-year old girls do not menstruate, and the coroner stated all her reproductive organs were pre-pubescent. THAT is what is a puzzle. Was it a too-thorough cleaning after soiling? Or was it a sexual assault. That is one of the problems I have personally with this case.

You are making it sound like a mystery DD. Wouldn't digital penetration of the vigorous kind likely cause damage to a little girl? Make her bleed? Or are you suggesting something else (a large object) was inserted? Was she bitten? If so, there would have been saliva and teeth marks. If penetrated even with a condom, there would have been traces found of the lubricant. I've always thought the sexual abuse itself was relatively minor, when compared to the violence of her death.

 

[cynic]

Not really. We are talking about someone touching the clothing, as opposed to someone touching something that someone else had touched, who subsequently touched the areas related to the crime. So I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that the DNA is more likely to have been deposited directly.
Now, as I said, this may be the killer or an accomplice. Less likely but still possible, contamination at the crime scene (BPD/coroner). Even less likely still, tertiary transfer of DNA belonging to one individual by the hand of another individual.

You can argue probabilities if you wish, the fact of the matter is that there are multiple viable innocent explanations for the DNA in this case.
As I reminded HOTYH, I wouldn’t get too heavily into probabilities if I were IDI.
We can start with the fact that 10% or less of child homicides are committed by strangers.
A parent, on the other hand, is involved in 2 out of 3 of these homicides.
Factor in the considerable circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys and we are dealing with high probabilities indeed, should you choose to pursue that path.

How curious! Didn't we discuss this just recently? I thought that it was you cynic, who gave the impression that gender was very easy to determine from DNA profiles

It is easy.

…this quote gives the impression that it may not be difinitive.

I believe it was merely a slightly ambiguous word used by that particular reporter as he wrote about the day’s testimony.
This reporter, however, states it quite clearly:
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
However, analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10395220

Female DNA was found, and it was reported extensively and unambiguously in the press.

“Where did the female DNA found on her shorts come from? The identity of the source was never established.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/baffling-pieces-of-a-brutal-jigsaw-puzzle/story-e6freuy9-1225866996226
“Mr Garling also told the court that unidentified female DNA was found on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, as well as under the fingernails of her right hand.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36646015/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/
“…leaving behind the unidentified female DNA that was found on her underpants and shorts.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1018021/425822.html

Additionally, Garling repeatedly referred to the female DNA in his closing argument, and while lawyers are free to speculate, within reason, on the meaning of the evidence in a case, they are not allowed to misstate the evidence. It is one item on a long list of “don’ts” in a court room.
Misstating the evidence
Confusing the issues
Misleading demonstration
Misquoting witness
Not reasonable inference from facts - sheer speculation
Etc.

The JP case stands as a stellar example of the possibilities of innocent transfer. Before the perpetrator was identified what do you think the discussion was in terms of probability?
According to Lacy’s reasoning it would have to be 100% probability that is was one or two females that committed the crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Oh, but it does because your magical DNA, which in the real world is actually touch-dna, can have many points of origin, so until there is a match, it has no meaning e.g. it has zero evidentiary value.

same goes for your handwriting which also has zero evidentiary value, since there is no one procedure for evaluating handwriting. So in a court of law it would be left to the expert witness to influence a jury.

An IDI based upon touch-dna is very very weak indeed!


.

I think its clear to everyone that this 'zero evidence' assertion demonstrates an unwillingness to employ logic. That there would never be, according to you, any circumstances where touch DNA results could be used to infer a rational sequence of events.

The ad hominem argument on touch DNA itself, that its viewed as magical, certainly doesn't help. It makes your argument seem more emotional than rational.

I suggest looking up the word 'evidence' in the dictionary, where its defined as anything that tends to support a view. The FACT that the handwriting and DNA are not CLEARLY OWNED by anyone in the house supports the view of IDI, therefore the handwriting and DNA are evidence of IDI.

It really is that simple.

 

[DeeDee249]

It's a matter of reading two different meanings into the fecal staining. I read it as staining from previously soiled (but laundered) panties in which the stains had not been completely removed by laundering. If you read it differently, so be it.
JB was likely unconscious when the size 12 panties were put on her.
I bought little girls' panties for my own daughter years ago, and they were sized numerically, not SML. This was 1996 and Bloomies may not have had them sized as they do today. I have actually been to a Bloomingdale's and they still sell panty sets similar to the ones on JB (of course, the patterns are different today) and they were available sized numerically. Patsy spoke of JB was wearing numeric sizes. This is all a moot point, as whatever they were, Patsy originally bought them for her niece. There is no disagreement between Patsy and LE about whether the panties on JB were the same ones she bought, Patsy said they were. So I am puzzled by the quibbling about how they may have been sized. What difference would it make if LE said they were a size L (when JB normally wore a S) or a size 12 (when JB normally wore a 6-8, according to her mother).
Patsy said she bought these panties as a gift and she said she wrapped gifts in the basement. The specific panty found on JB was part of a 7-piece set in which only the pair on JB was found. These were not brought in by an intruder, Patsy admitted buying them. So where were the other 6 pairs? I believe the police did not check the gift boxes in the basement at all that first day, searching for the other size 12 panties only after it was made known to them that there WERE (or should have been) more of them. Her panties were not visible on her body, they were described by the coroner, who removed them at the autopsy.
There was plenty of time for them to be removed or hidden.
As for the penetration- douching is not supposed to be vigorous. When it is, I imagine there could be blood and bruising (as well as a scream). I have no idea whether this took place- it is one explanation why someone might have pushed a paintbrush in her vagina to hide it. Same reason for a sexual assault. There was bruising in the vagina also, as well as the much-discussed hymenal erosion. Dead bodies don't bleed, so she was alive (and hopefully unconscious) when this happened. I feel Mayer was accurate in stating that her injuries were the result of a digital penetration and sexual contact. In his comments to those present at the autopsy, he did not mention either finding a paintbrush piece or injuries caused by a paintbrush piece, though him not mentioning it (or us not knowing he did) doesn't mean he had no comment or did not find this.
It isn't complicated. There was penetration that was not from a penis, condom or not. His opinion was that it was a finger. What isn't known is whether that alone caused the bleeding or was that caused by something else. A finger might bruise, but probably not cause enough bleeding to require the wiping down that was found. And as the hymen was already eroded, it is doubtful there was the bleeding that occurs when it is broken.
Yes, you are right in stating that the sexual abuse was "gentle" in a way. To quote Nedra, she was only a "little bit molested". But something caused the bleeding. That isn't opinion, it is fact. Blood was found both inside (though a very small amount) and enough had spilled onto her thighs and pubic area to require wiping.

 

[MurriFlower]

You can argue probabilities if you wish, the fact of the matter is that there are multiple viable innocent explanations for the DNA in this case.
As I reminded HOTYH, I wouldn’t get too heavily into probabilities if I were IDI.
We can start with the fact that 10% or less of child homicides are committed by strangers.
A parent, on the other hand, is involved in 2 out of 3 of these homicides.
Factor in the considerable circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys and we are dealing with high probabilities indeed, should you choose to pursue that path.

You speak as if those of us who do not believe the murder was committed by one of the Ramseys would be "afraid" to look at probabilities. I think we've discussed before, that the figures you quote above are very misleadinng. They take into account social, economic and substance abuse issues that do not feature here. There is also the matter of both parents needing to have been involved, another very low statistic. Then add the manner of death: headbash, garrote, sexual abuse and RN, and we are talking about a "one off" murder. So, statistics on the number of children killed by their parents doesn't even feature in this. However, it doesn't therefore mean that RDI has open slather on "far fetched" theories to account for their lack of evidence. Likelihoods and probabilities with regard to the DNA evidence still exist.

The JP case stands as a stellar example of the possibilities of innocent transfer. Before the perpetrator was identified what do you think the discussion was in terms of probability?
According to Lacy’s reasoning it would have to be 100% probability that is was one or two females that committed the crime.

Interesting as you say. I wouldn't be so sure that this is 'innocent transfer' though. Someone confessing, as we've seen with JMK doesn't necessarily make them the killer. Likewise, even with additional evidence, as in this case, the foreign DNA would always make you wonder if he was alone when the murder was committed.

If JMK's DNA was not found, but there was other physical and circumstantial evidence that placed him at the scene of the crime, what do you think might have happened? Might he have been convicted of JBR's murder as well? And if so, wouldn't we have all wondered who else might have been involved that was not identified?

 

[MurriFlower]

It's a matter of reading two different meanings into the fecal staining. I read it as staining from previously soiled (but laundered) panties in which the stains had not been completely removed by laundering. If you read it differently, so be it.

Well, the quote was not fecal staining but "soiled with fecal material". I too thought originally it meant they had not been washed properly, but what you said made me think they may not even have hit the laundry, but were replaced in the drawer to "teach her a lesson". This would have meant that she ended up having no choice other than to wear the new ones in the box eventhough they were a little large.

JB was likely unconscious when the size 12 panties were put on her.
I bought little girls' panties for my own daughter years ago, and they were sized numerically, not SML. This was 1996 and Bloomies may not have had them sized as they do today. I have actually been to a Bloomingdale's and they still sell panty sets similar to the ones on JB (of course, the patterns are different today) and they were available sized numerically.

Well, I'm a long way from Bloomingdales, so all I can go on is the size chart they have on their website. I will have to take your word that you have such a vivid recall of the size markings of panties you bought for your own daughter in 1996 LOL.

 

[claudicici]

I think knowing the nature of this murder investigation ( it was blotched and I think all IDI's and RDI's agree) it doesn't make much sense to keep arguing about the physical evidence or the lack there of.
I think the whole underwear issue is intriguing.IDI's why would you guys think PR acted so vague about the issue in her interview? why would she say she doesn't remember what underwear JB wore or even if she wore any at all? why would she admit to buying the size 12 panties but then say "they were fair game"?
....and Murry,why would you think it's necessary to take off gloves to sexually assault someone?

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, the quote was not fecal staining but "soiled with fecal material". I too thought originally it meant they had not been washed properly, but what you said made me think they may not even have hit the laundry, but were replaced in the drawer to "teach her a lesson". This would have meant that she ended up having no choice other than to wear the new ones in the box eventhough they were a little large.



Well, I'm a long way from Bloomingdales, so all I can go on is the size chart they have on their website. I will have to take your word that you have such a vivid recall of the size markings of panties you bought for your own daughter in 1996 LOL.

It was further back that that, actually. And why wouldn't I remember it? I know what sizes she wore at every stage of her childhood. Doesn't every mother? The only girls panties I see on their website are the Juicy Couture, which comes in sizes S-XL. They are NOT the same as the Bloomies girls' Day Of The Week Pansy sets which come in numeric sizes.

 

[MurriFlower]

Oh I see you edited.

Patsy spoke of JB was wearing numeric sizes. This is all a moot point, as whatever they were, Patsy originally bought them for her niece. There is no disagreement between Patsy and LE about whether the panties on JB were the same ones she bought, Patsy said they were. So I am puzzled by the quibbling about how they may have been sized. What difference would it make if LE said they were a size L (when JB normally wore a S) or a size 12 (when JB normally wore a 6-8, according to her mother).
.

Well, it is RDI that brings up the size and that they would have fallen off her. I find I have to investigate every single claim to establish if it is valid. This one, the 'oversized panties' of RDI fame, said to be size 12 (and by presumption to fit a 12 year old), I think I have established were more likely sized for girls 8-10, and were only 2" larger in waist than her regular panties, so were not the enormous ones pictured by another poster on a dummy. Each of these little things are what RDI uses to establish a 'body of circumstantial evidence' against the Rs. If they are taken and closely examined one by one, we find that they have little or no substance.

Patsy said she bought these panties as a gift and she said she wrapped gifts in the basement. The specific panty found on JB was part of a 7-piece set in which only the pair on JB was found. These were not brought in by an intruder, Patsy admitted buying them. So where were the other 6 pairs? I believe the police did not check the gift boxes in the basement at all that first day, searching for the other size 12 panties only after it was made known to them that there WERE (or should have been) more of them. Her panties were not visible on her body, they were described by the coroner, who removed them at the autopsy.
There was plenty of time for them to be removed or hidden

She did not say she wrapped the panties in the basement. That's misleading. She had some gifts wrapped in the store and apparently she had also wrapped some herself. To say that this was a gift, therefore it was wrapped and was in the winecellar is making an incorrect assumption. PR said these panties were in the drawer, and I think you agreed that this was also suspicious for another reason, but now it apparently suits your purpose to assume they were in the basement.

The fact remains, whether they were in the basement wrapped/opened or in the drawer in the box or not, why didn't BPD find them?

 

[DeeDee249]

The panties on the model you spoke of are the identical Bloomies Day of the Week panties in girl's size 12 pictured on a model of a 6-year old girl. (the poster's own child).

If the BP didn't find them, there are a few reasons. One may be that they didn't LOOK in the basement, not discovering the history of the panties and where and why they were bought until their interview with Patsy, long after the house was sold.
They looked in the dresser and bathroom drawers, where obviously there were none to be found.

 

[MurriFlower]

The panties on the model you spoke of are the identical Bloomies Day of the Week panties in girl's size 12 pictured on a model of a 6-year old girl. (the poster's own child).

If the BP didn't find them, there are a few reasons. One may be that they didn't LOOK in the basement, not discovering the history of the panties and where and why they were bought until their interview with Patsy, long after the house was sold.
They looked in the dresser and bathroom drawers, where obviously there were none to be found.

You must be thinking of another photo, as the link that was posted here recently was to a home made 'model' that fell apart, so it was not a real child. I cannot believe that the picture of the ones shown would have fit a 8-10 year old, let alone a 12 year old. They would have even fallen off me!!

You are probably right about the BPD not looking, but they were supposed to have been in the wine cellar, right next to the body. If we are to believe the RDI posters on here (LOL) they would have fallen off her, so 'oversized' were they!! If it were true, the coroner would have commented on it.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think knowing the nature of this murder investigation ( it was blotched and I think all IDI's and RDI's agree) it doesn't make much sense to keep arguing about the physical evidence or the lack there of.
I think the whole underwear issue is intriguing.IDI's why would you guys think PR acted so vague about the issue in her interview? why would she say she doesn't remember what underwear JB wore or even if she wore any at all? why would she admit to buying the size 12 panties but then say "they were fair game"?

I agree these are small issues, but as I said to DD, RDI often quote the 'totallity' of evidence, or the 'circumstantial' evidence. I suppose when we are constantly bombarded with 'oversized panties' as evidence of RDI, I then need to have a closer look to see if it is correct. Certainly I'd prefer not to waste my time, but this discussion has brought up something that coincidentally may have a bearing on the case. We need to establish if panties were in her drawer that had not been washed. If it is true, then we need to think how/why/by whom.

I have already said why I think PR was so vague about the size. It was a non-issue for her. She couldn't see why she was being so closely questioned on it. What difference would it make to anything that had happened to her daughter regardless of the size of her panties. In fact, I'm now wondering just how much attention she gave to such things. Would she have noticed if the underwear had 'fecal material' on it? Would she have thought it odd?

....and Murry,why would you think it's necessary to take off gloves to sexually assault someone?

Good question. I've never sexually assaulted anyone, so I'm just imagining that touch is a necessary factor. But you may be right, perhaps not! Maybe it was never about the sexual gratification of the abuser, but about the sexual injury to or humiliation of the victim. Thanks for bringing that up. They do say rape is not a crime of sex but rather one of power. This murder however, appears to be one of extreme hate. But who was the hatred directed at? Surely not JBR!!

 

[claudicici]

..the underwear issue really is a big deal to me and one of the things that make me lean towards RDI....just like DD said I remember what size underwear my daughter wore at any age,if I put longjohns on her christmas night and she was found dead the next morning,the type of underwear she wore would be one of the things forever etched into my mind.If she would have worn the size 12 that I bought for her niece I probably would have smiled that night and thought "oh she got out those panties and kept them for herself"...if she would not have worn any underwear that would have been an enormous red flag which I would have remembered without a doubt,if she would have worn her size underwear when I put her to sleep I would KNOW that the killer changed her....but why doesn't PR know? why is she lying?...like DD said ANY mother would know,I really believe that....