IDI: Whats your problem?

[cynic]

Give it up, it aint skin cell DNA.

Tom Bennett was closer to the investigation than you, and he says 'like a cough or sneeze'. Denver Post reported 'probably saliva'. Nobody's reporting 'it was skin cell DNA' except you. It doesn't matter if it was cough, sneeze, saliva, whatever. What matters is that it was not skin cell, thus placing two seperate cell types at the crime scene. This rules out the 'liberation of skin cell DNA' rationalization


.

So you want me to believe that Bennett does not have the word saliva in his vocabulary?
As I pointed out before, your Denver Post article does not cite a source, he may have been quoting you for all I know. You have NO credible source that says it is saliva.
It's skin cells.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I wouldn't take one even if I KNEW I was innocent!

Quist custodius ipsos custodius? Not buying it, Fang. This wasn't Alabama in the 1960s, this was Boulder in the 1990s.[/QUOTE]



Philadelphia February 2009

Daily News reporters Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman were named winners of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for the "Tainted Justice" series, their takedown of allegedly corrupt narcotics cops.

Laker and Ruderman's investigation into Officer Jeffrey Cujdik and other members of the Narcotics Field Unit began in February 2009, when an informant told the reporters that the cops sometimes lied on search warrants.

The two followed a trail that was paved by scores of old warrants and unheard allegations from bodega owners, who claimed the narcs had routinely disabled surveillance cameras during raids of their stores.

The merchants said thousands of dollars in cash and merchandise had vanished from their stores during the raids, which were aimed at confiscating tiny ziplock bags that were considered drug paraphernalia.

Other allegations were also uncovered during their reporting, which prompted an FBI investigation and numerous changes to police policy.

More than 50 convicted drug dealers are now fighting for new trials, alleging that officers had fabricated evidence against them.

"They went through thousands of search warrants and knocked on hundreds of doors," he said. "Nobody worked harder than those two."

Days added that the reporters gave voice to "people who are not viewed as full partners in our society, and who are sometimes marginalized."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So you want me to believe that Bennett does not have the word saliva in his vocabulary?
As I pointed out before, your Denver Post article does not cite a source, he may have quoting you for all I know. You have NO credible source that says it is saliva.
It's skin cells.

Its not skin cells. Instead, its exactly what Tom Bennett said: minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.

There are two different cell types at the crime scene, and this essentially eliminates secondary transfer scenarios.

Was JP's unknown female DNA of different cell types?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Actually, I find it odd there are no reports of either John or Patsy Ramsey's DNA being found on JonBenet.

Is that due to a reasonable expectation that two people with such close physical contact would leave discernable bodily material? Therefore, not reporting it suggests the cops or the lab techs, whoever, didn't want to find potentially incriminating evidence against the Ramsey's? Or, do you suspect the Rs removed all of it first?

 

[cynic]

Its not skin cells. Instead, its exactly what Tom Bennett said: minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.

There are two different cell types at the crime scene, and this essentially eliminates secondary transfer scenarios.

Was JP's unknown female DNA of different cell types?

My post and the arguments as to why it is not saliva, stand.
Full points for your attempted spin, though.
Read the highlighted portions.

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact,
-Mary Lacy
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...23/miss-steps/

The DNA could be an artifact. It isn‘t necessarily the killer‘s.
-Mary Lacy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20319079


If it was saliva, why would they think the profile is attributable to “human handling”
If it was saliva, why did Mary Lacy herself not believe it?
If it was saliva, why did ML believe it could be deposited through secondary contact, or be "arifact"
If it was saliva, why was it not found on JBR’s body or from the vaginal swabs?
If it was saliva, why are people saying it is not a DNA case?
If it was saliva, why are people saying it might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
If it was saliva, there are presumptive tests that identify it. Either they didn’t do a presumptive test to screen for saliva, or they are being coy with the result, or the DNA profile came from skin cells.

Saliva is not "a cough or a sneeze," to claim that is spin of the highest order.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I appreciate your effort, believe me.

It can be easily inferred that the inside crotch DNA is from a fluid. Nobody is going to confuse DNA 'from a cough or a sneeze' with DNA from skin cell. Certainly nobody who was that close to the investigation and obviously that well informed.

How about JP's unknown female DNA cell types. One type or multiple?

 

[cynic]

It can be easily inferred that the inside crotch DNA is from a fluid. Nobody is going to confuse DNA 'from a cough or a sneeze' with DNA from skin cell. Certainly nobody who was that close to the investigation and obviously that well informed.

Barry Scheck said it’s possible that it was skin cells.
Michael Kane said it was from “human handling”
Mary Lacy said secondary transfer was possible. How is that a possibility if it’s not skin cells, secondary transfer of saliva???
And besides, let’s cut to the chase, when we say saliva, many IDI theories talk about oral sexual contact.
Why did the vaginal swabs not reveal saliva, or any of the pelvic swabs, for that matter?
Are you trying to tell me that there would be no saliva in these areas, only in the blood spot?
As I said, there are very effective and sensitive tests for the presence of saliva.

How about JP's unknown female DNA cell types. One type or multiple?

Don’t know.

 

[madeleine]

here that it is saliva. imo

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/29/ramsey.arrest/index.html

"If Mr. Karr's account of his sexual involvement with the victim were accurate, it would have been highly likely that his saliva would have been mixed with the blood in the underwear," Boulder County prosecutors said in a motion they filed Monday to dismiss Karr's arrest warrant.

 

[madeleine]

But here they say something different

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/01/ng.01.html

GRACE: Joining us now, a forensic scientist who actually examined DNA in the Ramsey case way back when, Mark Stolorow. Sir, thank you for being with us. What did you learn from your examination of the DNA?

MARK STOLOROW, FORENSIC BIOLOGIST: We determined that there was DNA that did not match any of the family members in that particular household.

GRACE: Mark, is it -- the DNA in JonBenet`s underwear, is it a mixture of her DNA and the perp`s DNA?

STOLOROW: From what I understand, the relevant stain that is being examined or under investigation presently is a blood stain which is known to have come from a male. And so the presence of biological fluids other than blood has not been substantiated.



Maybe the DNA owner actually wanted to wipe off his OWN blood when he cleaned the body/changed her clothes?
Maybe that's why removed his gloves (hence the touch DNA on her longjohns)-panic?His blood ended up on the body and he needed to clean it up?

 

[Roy23]

But here they say something different

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/01/ng.01.html

GRACE: Joining us now, a forensic scientist who actually examined DNA in the Ramsey case way back when, Mark Stolorow. Sir, thank you for being with us. What did you learn from your examination of the DNA?

MARK STOLOROW, FORENSIC BIOLOGIST: We determined that there was DNA that did not match any of the family members in that particular household.

GRACE: Mark, is it -- the DNA in JonBenet`s underwear, is it a mixture of her DNA and the perp`s DNA?

STOLOROW: From what I understand, the relevant stain that is being examined or under investigation presently is a blood stain which is known to have come from a male. And so the presence of biological fluids other than blood has not been substantiated.



Maybe the DNA owner actually wanted to wipe off his OWN blood when he cleaned the body/changed her clothes?
Maybe that's why removed his gloves (hence the touch DNA on her longjohns)-panic?His blood ended up on the body and he needed to clean it up?

Good find. I think the major point to be taken from this is that the DNA is in a blood stain from JB's underwear. It is in a liquid form. Like I have said previously, there is so much information that contradicts each other due to statements made and opinions thrown out there.

Someone will find a statement to the contrary but I believe they have matched DNA in the underwear to DNA under the fingernails, and now the touch DNA on the leggings. I am willing to listen to any RDI theory that can accept that much.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

here that it is saliva. imo

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/29/ramsey.arrest/index.html

"If Mr. Karr's account of his sexual involvement with the victim were accurate, it would have been highly likely that his saliva would have been mixed with the blood in the underwear," Boulder County prosecutors said in a motion they filed Monday to dismiss Karr's arrest warrant.

There you have it, saliva DNA.

Two types of DNA from the same unknown male is very compelling. Beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Roy23]

There you have it, saliva DNA.

Two types of DNA from the same unknown male is very compelling. Beyond reasonable doubt.

It looks like it may be blood from the other article. Who frickin knows anymore?

 

[slug]

The biggest problem with the DNA as i see it without finding who it belongs to there is no way to prove how it got there, it may belong to the killer or it may belong to someone who knows who killed her.
especially the recently aquire touch DNA is very hard to say how it got there there are so many ways it could have both for RDI and IDI.
the other DNA mixed with blood i'm not sure without reading a full report detailing exactly how much was origanally obtain and how it was stored etc then all anyone can do is make an educated guess as to what it means.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It looks like it may be blood from the other article. Who frickin knows anymore?

According to madeleine's post, it was stated in court by an official that it was from saliva. Simply drawing from the most reliable sources closest to the investigation, its clear that the inside crotch DNA wasn't skin cell, but was some fluid. Blood, saliva, genetic material from a cough or sneeze doesn't really matter except in theorizing what happened.

The compelling part for me is the presence of two different cell types from the same unknown male, in various locations on multiple articles of JBR's clothing she wore that night. The most likely cause for this is the unknown male actually made repeated contact with JBR's clothing while she was wearing them. In at least one case we know that the contact is consistent with removing them.

 

[Roy23]

According to madeleine's post, it was stated in court by an official that it was from saliva. Simply drawing from the most reliable sources closest to the investigation, its clear that the inside crotch DNA wasn't skin cell, but was some fluid. Blood, saliva, genetic material from a cough or sneeze doesn't really matter except in theorizing what happened.

The compelling part for me is the presence of two different cell types from the same unknown male, in various locations on multiple articles of JBR's clothing she wore that night. The most likely cause for this is the unknown male actually made repeated contact with JBR's clothing while she was wearing them. In at least one case we know that the contact is consistent with removing them.

I stand corrected.

If this is accurate, and I will just say if, BOMBSHELL.

 

[DeeDee249]

here that it is saliva. imo

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/29/ramsey.arrest/index.html

"If Mr. Karr's account of his sexual involvement with the victim were accurate, it would have been highly likely that his saliva would have been mixed with the blood in the underwear," Boulder County prosecutors said in a motion they filed Monday to dismiss Karr's arrest warrant.

I don't see this as a confirmation that what was found was saliva. What I see here is that they are saying that Karr told them he had oral sexual contact with JB. We know this didn't really happen because Karr was not there at the time and has no connection to the crime except in his own mind, AND because there was NO DNA linking HIM to the body, the house, or the crime.
There was no saliva found in vaginal swabs or the swabs of her thighs and pubic area, which revealed only her own blood.
Karr stating to LE that he had oral sex with JB is NOT an official finding of saliva anywhere on JB or her clothing.

 

[DeeDee249]

There you have it, saliva DNA.

Two types of DNA from the same unknown male is very compelling. Beyond reasonable doubt.

This is just what you are reading into it. This doesn't say it WAS saliva, only that if Karr's account is accurate, which we now know it isn't, his saliva would have to be there- and it isn't. Absolutely NOTHING has ever been found to link Karr to this crime. Not a hair, fiber or any other DNA, fingerprint. Nothing.
Only his statements that he was there. And I think even IDI must realize he is lying.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't see this as a confirmation that what was found was saliva. What I see here is that they are saying that Karr told them he had oral sexual contact with JB. We know this didn't really happen because Karr was not there at the time and has no connection to the crime except in his own mind, AND because there was NO DNA linking HIM to the body, the house, or the crime.
There was no saliva found in vaginal swabs or the swabs of her thighs and pubic area, which revealed only her own blood.
Karr stating to LE that he had oral sex with JB is NOT an official finding of saliva anywhere on JB or her clothing.

I agree. That statement can be read as though they're saying "I wish the story were true, because then we'd KNOW what it was."

 

[Roy23]

I agree. That statement can be read as though they're saying "I wish the story were true, because then we'd KNOW what it was."

That is certainly possible. What do you think the DNA is Dave?

 

[DeeDee249]

It is problematic for me, at least, if the panty DNA was found to match the longjohns. To me, this rules out DNA left by someone involved in the handling/manufacturing process before the panties were bought by Patsy.
BUT it still does not prove the DNA is the killers or someone who was there when she was killed.
The way I see it, the panty DNA could still be the same skin cells as the longjohns, which became mixed with the liquid drop of JB's blood. The blood wouldn't "liquify" the skin cells, but the skin cells presence in the drop of blood could yield the two profiles from that drop of blood.