IDI: Whats your problem?

[UKGuy]

As I suggest? I didn't suggest it as suspicious. It has been reported by major media as suspicious, belonging to killer, and exhonerating the R's. I therefore don't have to demonstrate to you the DNA as foreign because I have accepted the premise that touch DNA is the result of direct contact by the DNA owner and only the DNA owner. This is how it is presented at the Bode website. We know this about the two legging DNA deposits. We don't know this about the DNA on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear.

Please feel free to provide one instance where a touch DNA profile is being legally contested as deposited by someone other than its owner. I believe that is what you're suggesting.

Its like finding yellow paint on the dented blue car, but you'll not search for a yellow car, instead you wish to search for a green car that had hit another yellow car first. Have I got this right? And doesn't this circumvent prima facie?

Holdontoyourhat,
Well by your own admission you accept premises offered to you by others, and that these are da-facto foreign ... end of story ...

Please feel free to provide one instance where a touch DNA profile is being legally contested as deposited by someone other than its owner. I believe that is what you're suggesting.

em, no, as you know DNA should be able to be sourced its owner, but DNA is ubiquitous, it is not unique to homicide cases, and can be traced to every day life. The detection of semen DNA changes this every day occurrence!


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,
Well by your own admission you accept premises offered to you by others, and that these are da-facto foreign ... end of story ...


em, no, as you know DNA should be able to be sourced its owner, but DNA is ubiquitous, it is not unique to homicide cases, and can be traced to every day life. The detection of semen DNA changes this every day occurrence!


.

A word to the wise is sufficient. I'm not a DNA expert and don't pretend to be.

You've got more premises of others accepted in your mind than you've got unknown male DNA in your underwear, I'll tell you that right now. Unless, of course, you've never been a student of anything...

Your 'end of story' is right. Mine is just beginning.

 

[BBB167893]

the best justice money can buy. God Bless America!

"and justice for all." What a joke.

 

[BBB167893]

Well the "Foreign'' DNA taken from JonBenét's underpants and fingernails, left in a stain found in JonBenets size-12 white pants reportedly doesn't match DNA samples provided by dozens of family and friends. Which means it could literally come from anywhere e.g. Fleet White's toilet seat, Patsy's last handshake with some stranger etc. If it had been semen DNA then you would have a case and your theory would hold some water, otherwise its like all the rest of the environmentally airborne debri including some of the the fibers on JonBenet's corpse :- indeterminate.


Genetic material is just that , it could be skin cells from a box that held the size-12 underwear clean on JonBenet that morning, it might be the result of someone sneezing on the longjohns at any point. Its just not semen DNA which would then be consistent with a sexual assault and not a staged homicide.

That is the DNA may be Foreign to JonBenet's person but it may not be Foreign to the Ramsey household, establish this and you have a case.

Whether IDI likes it or not, this is a very real issue they'll have to overcome.

 

[BBB167893]

I therefore don't have to demonstrate to you the DNA as foreign because I have accepted the premise that touch DNA is the result of direct contact by the DNA owner and only the DNA owner. This is how it is presented at the Bode website.

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem, the way a lot of us see it, HOTYH: the "premise was accepted" BEFORE they found it.

Please feel free to provide one instance where a touch DNA profile is being legally contested as deposited by someone other than its owner. I believe that is what you're suggesting.

We probably don't have long to wait.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem, the way a lot of us see it, HOTYH: the "premise was accepted" BEFORE they found it.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

They decided there might be DNA on the longjohn waistband before they looked for it? What's wrong with that? Do you believe they only looked for the original DNA on the longjohns?

 

[BBB167893]

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I plan to make myself clear.

They decided there might be DNA on the longjohn waistband before they looked for it?

You just nailed it, my friend.

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with it??? Let me just say this out loud, so I can get it straight in my head: IDI absolutely SAVAGES the BPD for supposedly deciding who did it and then trying to find evidence to fit the theory, but apparently when your guys (and girls) do it, that's just fine and dandy. You don't see a problem with that?

Do you believe they only looked for the original DNA on the longjohns?

I have no reason to think otherwise at this point.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I plan to make myself clear.



You just nailed it, my friend.



What's wrong with it??? Let me just say this out loud, so I can get it straight in my head: IDI absolutely SAVAGES the BPD for supposedly deciding who did it and then trying to find evidence to fit the theory, but apparently when your guys (and girls) do it, that's just fine and dandy. You don't see a problem with that?



I have no reason to think otherwise at this point.

I dont doubt this.

Maybe you're confusing 'testing of a hypothesis' with investigative bias...?

Please feel free to show BPD testing of a hypothesis with positive result? I know they attempted to have PR reproduce the RN down to using the same pen, and word for word reproduction of the ransom note. Negative result, though. Something I would never have permitted in the first place.

The Bode DNA testing had positive result and conclusions were therefore drawn. To the public's satisfaction, I might add.

 

[BBB167893]

I dont doubt this.

I'm a man who means what he says. But you knew that.

Maybe you're confusing 'testing of a hypothesis' with investigative bias...?

SOMEONE's confusing them, that's for damn sure!

Please feel free to show BPD testing of a hypothesis with positive result?

I doubt very seriously you'd accept anything I had to offer.

I know they attempted to have PR reproduce the RN down to using the same pen, and word for word reproduction of the ransom note. Negative result, though.

You'll get some pretty heavy argument on that, brother. A lot of it from me. When the CBI examiner, after almost three years of study, tells his boss "I think she wrote it," that doesn't sound like a "negative" result to me. Having THE document examiner confirm it is just icing on the cake.

Something I would never have permitted in the first place.

Not like it matters now.

The Bode DNA testing had positive result and conclusions were therefore drawn.

I'm arguing it was just the other way around.

To the public's satisfaction, I might add.

I wouldn't go betting on that, if I were you.

 

[Kat]

I'm going to post something, let me preface by saying it's going to look like a "drive by" posting. Only because I don't post on JBR's subforum. I have read here and the arguments are brilliant.

My post is going to seem oversimplified and not well thought through but I have pondered JBR over the years, quite often as a matter of fact.

When I step back from the case and look at it from afar and look at it as a whole, rather than the myriad of pieces of which it is comprised, I have begun to see it with a bit of clarity.

We have seen cases where an intruder entered a home while the adults in that home were sleeping for the sole purpose of access to a minor child.

Yes, they are more rare but they do still happen a very small percentage of the time.

Here is the clarity--How many times have we seen an intruder enter a home for the sole purpose of murdering a child within that home while the parents slept? Leaving the body of the child within the house?


I'm coming up empty on that one, I've searched google for days too.

That is why I disbelieve there was an intruder. I am of the thought at this moment that it was an adult in that home.

That leaves me with two. Mom or Dad. That one I haven't come to a conclusion about yet. As for the "new" DNA that was found by touch DNA, meh---how many people have handled that evidence? How many people handled that evidence before it was bagged?

The crime scene was completely compromised before they even took JBR out of the home.

That's where I am today. I know I don't post here often so thank you to everyone that posts diligently for JBR. All JMHO.

 

[MurriFlower]

I'm going to post something, let me preface by saying it's going to look like a "drive by" posting. Only because I don't post on JBR's subforum. I have read here and the arguments are brilliant.

My post is going to seem oversimplified and not well thought through but I have pondered JBR over the years, quite often as a matter of fact.

When I step back from the case and look at it from afar and look at it as a whole, rather than the myriad of pieces of which it is comprised, I have begun to see it with a bit of clarity.

We have seen cases where an intruder entered a home while the adults in that home were sleeping for the sole purpose of access to a minor child.

Yes, they are more rare but they do still happen a very small percentage of the time.

Here is the clarity--How many times have we seen an intruder enter a home for the sole purpose of murdering a child within that home while the parents slept? Leaving the body of the child within the house?


I'm coming up empty on that one, I've searched google for days too.

That is why I disbelieve there was an intruder. I am of the thought at this moment that it was an adult in that home.

That leaves me with two. Mom or Dad. That one I haven't come to a conclusion about yet. As for the "new" DNA that was found by touch DNA, meh---how many people have handled that evidence? How many people handled that evidence before it was bagged?

The crime scene was completely compromised before they even took JBR out of the home.

That's where I am today. I know I don't post here often so thank you to everyone that posts diligently for JBR. All JMHO.

You're right Kat, this was definitely a 'one off' with all the atypical elements. I don't think even Prof Google can help here!

Interested to hear your thoughts though.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Do you really believe we all have unknown male DNA on the inside crotch of our underwear and on two places on a different article--our pants waistband?

Just a reality check, thats all...

I've been thinking about this a great deal. Years ago, right after high school, I worked at a place that prepared everything that John Wanamaker's sold. Clothing was checked, counted, tagged and hung on hangers.
There was a special department where items were removed from packaging and hung on clip hangers ( for pants, skirts & long johns) . That required lots of handling and in the same areas as one would think were involved in pulling down long johns. Especially, the sides and waist band. The transfer to other areas by JonBenet seems very likely to me.

I will say an intruder did it ONLY when they find a match to that degraded DNA on the rope, tape or paintbrush handle. (I would expect there be much more on the rope.)

The rope should have been the first piece of evidence tested, IMO. There is a cold case now solved by testing the ROPE used in a murder back in 1977 discussed right here on WS .
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110178"]1977 WA cold case solved - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

There are simply too many perfectly innocent explanations for it. The very small, degraded amount could have been transferred by Patsy or John during the staging!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I've been thinking about this a great deal. Years ago, right after high school, I worked at a place that prepared everything that John Wanamaker's sold. Clothing was checked, counted, tagged and hung on hangers.
There was a special department where items were removed from packaging and hung on clip hangers ( for pants, skirts & long johns) . That required lots of handling and in the same areas as one would think were involved in pulling down long johns. Especially, the sides and waist band. The transfer to other areas by JonBenet seems very likely to me.

I will say an intruder did it ONLY when they find a match to that degraded DNA on the rope, tape or paintbrush handle. (I would expect there be much more on the rope.)

The rope should have been the first piece of evidence tested, IMO. There is a cold case now solved by testing the ROPE used in a murder back in 1977 discussed right here on WS .
1977 WA cold case solved - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

There are simply too many perfectly innocent explanations for it. The very small, degraded amount could have been transferred by Patsy or John during the staging!

"THAT degraded DNA" says it all for me. The DNA received fully undegraded status the minute Bode identifed two more samples. Where have you been? Nobody calls it degraded or factory worker DNA anymore.

Degraded is an old BPD wives tale. THAT 'degraded' 'factory worker' DNA was NOT to interfere with the case against the R's. As soon as they coughed up the samples for the FBI, suddenly they weren't degraded anymore. Go figure!

 

[Linda7NJ]

"THAT degraded DNA" says it all for me. The DNA received fully undegraded status the minute Bode identifed two more samples. Where have you been? Nobody calls it degraded or factory worker DNA anymore.

Degraded is an old BPD wives tale. THAT 'degraded' 'factory worker' DNA was NOT to interfere with the case against the R's. As soon as they coughed up the samples for the FBI, suddenly they weren't degraded anymore. Go figure!

By "nobody" you mean Lacy?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

By "nobody" you mean Lacy?

This doesn't make sense. But OK I'll play along.

Who (besides you) currently calls the longjohn DNA 'degraded'? Right now, I believe you simply misspoke, used an archaic reference. The 'degraded' reference to the inside crotch area DNA is now obsolete with the corroborating longjohn waistband DNA. It was never much good in the first place if you ask me.

 

[BBB167893]

By "nobody" you mean Lacy?

Yeah, I think he does.

Also, just to clear something up: the DNA did not become "undegraded" when the FBI got their hands on it. Even then, there were only 9-1/2 markers out of the full 13, and they had to amplify it to get THAT many.

The inmates are running the asylum, as this case stands now.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yeah, I think he does.

Also, just to clear something up: the DNA did not become "undegraded" when the FBI got their hands on it. Even then, there were only 9-1/2 markers out of the full 13, and they had to amplify it to get THAT many.

The inmates are running the asylum, as this case stands now.

Do you then also believe the legging DNA is degraded?

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave, can you tell where you got the details about the DNA? Also, if the DNA is degraded, does it mean it can not be matched to the touch DNA? Where did Mary Lacey get the idea that the DNAs are a match, I assume it could not have been just her fabrication.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI will ask you to believe ML planted the DNA, tested it, and printed the news all by herself.

 

[BBB167893]

Do you then also believe the legging DNA is degraded?

Without knowing more about it, I can't say one way or the other. Let me put it this way: it wouldn't surprise me, but I won't bet the house on it just now.