IDI: Whats your problem?

[Roy23]

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.

I know you are not going to believe me but you bank that the panty DNA matches with the skin cells on the longjohns. That is a given.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Hard to say, Roy. And that's putting it mildly.

But I will say this: it's not semen, it's not blood. That doesn't leave much, does it?

Your openmindedness is refreshing, Roy.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hard to say, Roy. And that's putting it mildly.

Not that hard. I suggest using more facts and less fiction:

The genetic material from an unknown male has been discovered on a swab sample from a blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear. More genetic material from the same unknown male was found in scrapings from two (2) places that were tested on JBR's longjohn waistband.

These new facts are inarguable and the implications are obvious except to the blind. Facts such as these were never even sought after by lazy 'look at the parents' armchair types.

Which scenario is more common, more believable, more likely? The scenario of primary transfer by the DNA owner while JBR was wearing both items, in the course of the criminal act? We know the perp handled these items, right? Its not that surprising then to find a trace, right?

I've been asking for a believable albeit less likely RDI scenario that accounts for the DNA facts, but all I've read is the wildcard and vague 'secondary transfer' over and over.

 

[madeleine]

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.

Could be this but you can also read it like "we would have found HIS saliva if so and not someone elses"

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.

To be honest I am not sure he doesn't know anything about it.He probably wasn't there but that doesn't mean he never had contact with the one/ones who did it.Everybody thought he's a lunatic and maybe no one really paid attention to what he said.It's tricky.M.Lacy :"We were not able to establish he was in Boulder, but as importantly, we were not able to establish that he was not in Boulder."

 

[madeleine]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpMGtY8vilA[/ame]

Mary Lacy: The saliva… his saliva would be in her blood. That was his description of the crime. So in fact there is DNA in her blood which we can’t say absolutely is saliva but which looks like it probably is saliva and so it would have to be his.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wouldn't they TEST it? I mean, they have Karr's DNA. I think we can be certain if the DNA was Karr's we would know about it. It is still classified as "unknown male DNA".
You are basing this on Karr's say-so . His description of what he did to her, which has no basis in fact if his DNA is NOT the DNA that was found. It is more like his perverted "wish list".
Lacy wanted to save face after bring him back to the US at great expense, and the case against him fell apart because he can't be linked to the crime.

 

[madeleine]

Wouldn't they TEST it? I mean, they have Karr's DNA. I think we can be certain if the DNA was Karr's we would know about it. It is still classified as "unknown male DNA".
You are basing this on Karr's say-so . His description of what he did to her, which has no basis in fact if his DNA is NOT the DNA that was found. It is more like his perverted "wish list".
Lacy wanted to save face after bring him back to the US at great expense, and the case against him fell apart because he can't be linked to the crime.

With my Karr posts I only wanted to point out that the UNKNOWN DNA (never said,nor implied it's Karr's) is probably saliva.Officials mention saliva twice ,once in the affidavit and at the press conference.

 

[BBB167893]

Not that hard. I suggest using more facts and less fiction:

My suggestion exactly.

These new facts are inarguable and the implications are obvious except to the blind. Facts such as these were never even sought after by lazy 'look at the parents' armchair types.

Then I'm grateful that I'm not one of the types you describe.

Which scenario is more common, more believable, more likely? The scenario of primary transfer by the DNA owner while JBR was wearing both items, in the course of the criminal act? We know the perp handled these items, right? Its not that surprising then to find a trace, right?

In a vacuum, I'd say you're right 100%. But with all we have to work with up to now? Not so much.

I've been asking for a believable albeit less likely RDI scenario that accounts for the DNA facts, but all I've read is the wildcard and vague 'secondary transfer' over and over.

I don't find that unbelievable myself, for quite a few reasons.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

In a vacuum, I'd say you're right 100%.

Well, in a vacuum is where they make perfect stuff, right?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't find that unbelievable myself, for quite a few reasons.

Please pardon my persistence, but now the tenet of RDI is based on an innocent placement of DNA in these locations. Its a reasonable request that RDI define a scenario whereby these traces would exist.

A man alone in the bathroom with JBR, on the same day/night she was the victim of filicide doesn't wash.

Remember that the DNA is deposited on two articles of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered. And not just anywhere, but on the inside crotch of her underwear and on two places on the longjohn waistband.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, in a vacuum is where they make perfect stuff, right?

My point exactly.

 

[BBB167893]

Please pardon my persistence,

Pardon it? I WELCOME it!

but now the tenet of RDI is based on an innocent placement of DNA in these locations. Its a reasonable request that RDI define a scenario whereby these traces would exist.

Right.

A man alone in the bathroom with JBR, on the same day/night she was the victim of filicide doesn't wash.

I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested that.

Remember that the DNA is deposited on two articles of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered.

True. But let's be careful with our wording here. We know she was wearing those clothes at the time she was murdered. We don't know that's when the DNA was deposited.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

True. But let's be careful with our wording here. We know she was wearing those clothes at the time she was murdered. We don't know that's when the DNA was deposited.

What I've been asking for is a plausible RDI scenario whereby the DNA from an unknown male is deposited in these three places on these two items of clothing.

 

[cynic]

Not according to several sources, including Tom Bennett who is closer than you to the investigation. He said 'minute, like from a cough or sneeze'.

Its not like they can find unknown male DNA, enough for a CODIS profile, on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear and not see the skin cell container in which it came. Thats absurd.

Further, nobody except devout RDI are pushing that the inside crotch blood stain DNA is skin cell, and for obvious reason. Pushing the skin cell idea to keep secondary tranfer scenario alive in RDI's own mind, without an authoritative source that says 'we found skin cells'.

There are several people inside the investigation that say it was fluid based. None said skin cell. They did not rule out that they were holding saliva DNA, therefore it could be mucous DNA of some sort.

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.
-Autopsy report

There was visible blood in the genital area of JonBenet. This would have unquestionably been swabbed.
There would also have been internal vaginal swabs, and swabs of other areas in the genital region.

Where is the saliva?
Do you expect anyone to believe that the only saliva from a sexual encounter would be in that single blood spot on her panties?
However, if her panties were handled in the area where she later bled, it would explain the DNA perfectly.
Skin cell based DNA would provide the “unknown” DNA component in the blood stain, while swabs elsewhere on JBR would reveal only JBR’s profile.

 

[cynic]

Its not like they can find unknown male DNA, enough for a CODIS profile, on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear and not see the skin cell container in which it came. Thats absurd.

...skin cell container????????

 

[cynic]

With my Karr posts I only wanted to point out that the UNKNOWN DNA (never said,nor implied it's Karr's) is probably saliva. Officials mention saliva twice , once in the affidavit and at the press conference.

During the same press conference ML also said:
So when you say “was it the DNA, the lynchpin? It was based on his story. The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else. But the way he told the story, it had to be his and it’s not.

(Artifact. A result that resembles, and therefore may be mistaken for, a real phenomenon but which reflects experimental error or is due to some extraneous factor.)

 

[BBB167893]

What I've been asking for is a plausible RDI scenario whereby the DNA from an unknown male is deposited in these three places on these two items of clothing.

Got it.

 

[DeeDee249]

With my Karr posts I only wanted to point out that the UNKNOWN DNA (never said,nor implied it's Karr's) is probably saliva.Officials mention saliva twice ,once in the affidavit and at the press conference.

Saliva is only mentioned with regard to Karr's claims. IF he had oral sex with her, then the male DNA in the panties would likely be his saliva. But it was not determined that it WAS saliva, and it certainly isn't his DNA. That is the only reason that LE mentioned saliva at all- because Karr said what he said. Saliva is only mentioned in so far as to say IF what Karr said was true, then saliva would have to be present.
We still cannot say the DNA is probably saliva. It could be anything, because Karr's claims are not true. If Karr's claims were true, then it would BE saliva.

 

[DeeDee249]

Please pardon my persistence, but now the tenet of RDI is based on an innocent placement of DNA in these locations. Its a reasonable request that RDI define a scenario whereby these traces would exist.

A man alone in the bathroom with JBR, on the same day/night she was the victim of filicide doesn't wash.

Remember that the DNA is deposited on two articles of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered. And not just anywhere, but on the inside crotch of her underwear and on two places on the longjohn waistband.

JB was well known to ask any adult, male or female, to help her in the bathroom. I had read that some people refused to do this, feeling she was old enough to wipe herself. I actually CAN see a scenario where a male was helping JB in the bathroom that day, and though it would have been prudent, I doubt they would have called in a "witness" to be sure nothing improper happened. They would have just wiped her, and helped her pull up her pants.
It need not have been an adult, either. There were plenty of male children there. Once again, the male DNA is mistakenly presumed to be ADULT male DNA, which we do not know for sure it was because we do not know the age of the donor.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JB was well known to ask any adult, male or female, to help her in the bathroom. I had read that some people refused to do this, feeling she was old enough to wipe herself. I actually CAN see a scenario where a male was helping JB in the bathroom that day, and though it would have been prudent, I doubt they would have called in a "witness" to be sure nothing improper happened. They would have just wiped her, and helped her pull up her pants.
It need not have been an adult, either. There were plenty of male children there. Once again, the male DNA is mistakenly presumed to be ADULT male DNA, which we do not know for sure it was because we do not know the age of the donor.

I presume you mean the Christmas party, right?