IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

Yawn!!!

You must have some pretty interesting reasons for dismissing the above quotes so blithely. I figured you'd appreciate how important they are.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Damn straight! NEVER GIVE UP.

Especially when the police have tested everyone that was known to be around that little girl.

I find that extremely hard to believe.

 

[DeeDee249]

The police never tested any of the male CHILDREN who were around JB that day. Earlier in the day, BR had some friends over the R house, and then there were some boys at the White's, including the S's son, who was a good friend of BR's. It is interesting to note that the S's were vicious defenders of the Rs after the murder, to the extent of committing illegal acts (impersonating police). But yet, they were NOT among those who came to the R home right after the 911 call.
It must be said AGAIN that the male DNA found on JB's clothing need NOT have come from an adult male. Yet, none of these boys were not tested. They are young MEN now, and I am not sure if they can be required to be tested or if they would have to volunteer, but I am sure none of them will ever be tested.

Imagine how much it would help solve this case if that male DNA turned out to match one of those boys. So simple. A way to either rule out innocent transfer or put focus on why and how it got there, and who else may have been in the home that night with JB.
Don't hold your breath.

 

[BBB167893]

I understand why someone would think that ML was premature to exonerate the Ramsey family.

Glad to hear it.

I believe it was done because of how unprofessionally they were treated.

Roy, let's take a close look at that. Even if I were to agree that the Rs were treated unprofessionally--and I don't, mind you; just about any other police force would have been MUCH tougher on them than the BPD was--I'm puzzled as to how it's ML's responsibility to "correct" that, or even as to WHY she thought it was her responsibility in the first place.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm not aware of any DA who would take the kind of steps ML took in this case. Even LW said it was unheard of. It's not a DA's JOB to do that. That's not what the people elect DAs to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's why we had TRIALS and JURIES. To me, this perfectly illustrates the problem with the BDA's office: they act more like defense lawyers than prosecutors.

Moreover, who the he** is ML to say whether or not someone is unprofessional, when she had never even TAKEN a murder case to trial and had no real experience? I don't know if you know, but there's a story from one of ML's campaign workers about how she took it upon herself to chastise Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during his interview with her in 1998. Now, you think about that: here you have an assistant DA who was only tangientially involved in the case for the first five years and had never taken a murder case to trial getting in the face of one of the finest homicide detectives in the country and telling him he was too tough for using absolutely standard interview techniques that the greenest rookie on a beat would know!

Basically, I'm asking the same question that Haney asked: "who the he** does she think SHE is?"

If someone could explain all of this stuff to me, I'd appreciate it mightily.

Like I told someone else today, if a Ramsey was never put through the ringer, we may never have even been told about some of the new DNA evidence.

I'm afraid I don't understand how one leads to the other.

 

[cynic]

Confused on touch DNA method?

attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA

That is the goal, however, if a sample is degraded, the primers will be unable to attach to all of the target locations, and consequently there will be drop out, in other words missing markers.

 

[Roy23]

Glad to hear it.



Roy, let's take a close look at that. Even if I were to agree that the Rs were treated unprofessionally--and I don't, mind you; just about any other police force would have been MUCH tougher on them than the BPD was--I'm puzzled as to how it's ML's responsibility to "correct" that, or even as to WHY she thought it was her responsibility in the first place.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm not aware of any DA who would take the kind of steps ML took in this case. Even LW said it was unheard of. It's not a DA's JOB to do that. That's not what the people elect DAs to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's why we had TRIALS and JURIES. To me, this perfectly illustrates the problem with the BDA's office: they act more like defense lawyers than prosecutors.

Moreover, who the he** is ML to say whether or not someone is unprofessional, when she had never even TAKEN a murder case to trial and had no real experience? I don't know if you know, but there's a story from one of ML's campaign workers about how she took it upon herself to chastise Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during his interview with her in 1998. Now, you think about that: here you have an assistant DA who was only tangientially involved in the case for the first five years and had never taken a murder case to trial getting in the face of one of the finest homicide detectives in the country and telling him he was too tough for using absolutely standard interview techniques that the greenest rookie on a beat would know!

Basically, I'm asking the same question that Haney asked: "who the he** does she think SHE is?"

If someone could explain all of this stuff to me, I'd appreciate it mightily.



I'm afraid I don't understand how one leads to the other.

Aggh. It doesn't do any good to explain anything to you guys. The truth is staring you right in the face and I try like hell to point it out for you but PT Barnum is only proven right once again. Mary Lacey in her own way was trying to right a wrong and she doesn't give a hoot that a few nimrods who think they deserve to know the evidence will be critical of her. But she gave a little tidbit they have on new DNA to get the media of the Ramsey's since the BPD is out writing books and stuff.

At the end of the day, you guys are gonna keep with your conspiricies while the new BPD and DA's office have accepted their past failures. And the day will come when the killer is found. Understand that when that happens, and it will, everyone of you need to be tarred and feathered.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That is the goal, however, if a sample is degraded, the primers will be unable to attach to all of the target locations, and consequently there will be drop out, in other words missing markers.

No. In YOUR words, there are or may be missing markers. You're alone in this idea as far as these specific touch DNA results are concerned.

Unless you have a specific report that in the case of these two (2) specific touch DNA profiles, things didn't happen completely, it can be assumed the default worked. It is reasonable to assume that 13 markers are present. It is unreasonable to suspect an incomplete or partial profile from the touch DNA, based on all existing news reports.

You're raising doubt in all areas where doubt can be raised. Seeing what will stick. Raising doubt in quality, context, and transfer mode. Taken individually RDI will lose the argument outright or certainly not be able to win even one. Yet RDI seems to present these arguments as if they're winning.

 

[BBB167893]

Aggh. It doesn't do any good to explain anything to you guys.

What a coincidence! I was going to say the EXACT same thing!

The truth is staring you right in the face and I try like hell to point it out for you but PT Barnum is only proven right once again.

Have you been sneaking looks at my notes? You're starting to talk like me.

At the end of the day, you guys are gonna keep with your conspiracies while the new BPD and DA's office have accepted their past failures.

The only person I know of who's talking conspiracies is you, Roy. I'm merely asking some simple questions.

And the day will come when the killer is found. Understand that when that happens, and it will, everyone of you need to be tarred and feathered.

Alas, my friends. I fear the chameleon has shown his true colors. I am disappointed, but not shocked.

 

[cynic]

No. In YOUR words, there are or may be missing markers. You're alone in this idea as far as these specific touch DNA results are concerned.

Unless you have a specific report that in the case of these two (2) specific touch DNA profiles, things didn't happen completely, it can be assumed the default worked. It is reasonable to assume that 13 markers are present. It is unreasonable to suspect an incomplete or partial profile from the touch DNA, based on all existing news reports.

You're raising doubt in all areas where doubt can be raised. Seeing what will stick. Raising doubt in quality, context, and transfer mode. Taken individually RDI will lose the argument outright or certainly not be able to win even one. Yet RDI seems to present these arguments as if they're winning.

The quote you cited is common to all DNA testing, not simply touch DNA.
In other words, the fingernail sample and the sample from the panties would have also been targeted for 13 loci, but in both cases only a partial profile was the result. Do you seriously think that if every other DNA sample in the case was degraded, and in the case of the fingernail DNA, degraded to the point of being useless, that all of sudden a perfect profile will result from a touch DNA sample. Boy, that's wishful thinking.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The quote you cited is common to all DNA testing, not simply touch DNA.
In other words, the fingernail sample and the sample from the panties would have also been targeted for 13 loci, but in both cases only a partial profile was the result. Do you seriously think that if every other DNA sample in the case was degraded, and in the case of the fingernail DNA, degraded to the point of being useless, that all of sudden a perfect profile will result from an undegraded touch DNA sample. Boy, that's wishful thinking.

The fingernail DNA has been described as partial or degraded. The underwear DNA sample no. 1 was described as partial and degraded also. The underwear DNA sample no. 2 was described as a partial profile having enough markers for CODIS. The touch DNA discovered by Bode was never described as partial or degraded. In fact they have two successful profiles not just one. This is you attempting to invoke stuff nobody said.

 

[Roy23]

What a coincidence! I was going to say the EXACT same thing!



Have you been sneaking looks at my notes? You're starting to talk like me.



The only person I know of who's talking conspiracies is you, Roy. I'm merely asking some simple questions.



Alas, my friends. I fear the chameleon has shown his true colors. I am disappointed, but not shocked.

How do you figure Chameleon?

I mean it is crystal clear that RDI doesn't even factor in the case anymore unless they hired someone. The whole case has changed and everybody has done an about face who is investigating. Nobody in the know is talking or complaining anymore. They are gonna get him Dave. I am frustrated that you won't open your mind to see all the signs of a case on track.

 

[BBB167893]

How do you figure Chameleon?

You're right. You never pretended to be anything else. I fooled myself, just like always. I keep trying to handle snakes, and they always bite me.

I mean it is crystal clear that RDI doesn't even factor in the case anymore unless they hired someone.

We'll see, sir. We'll see.

The whole case has changed and everybody has done an about face who is investigating.

Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen.

Nobody in the know is talking or complaining anymore.

I figure we do enough of that for everybody.

They are gonna get him Dave.

I certainly hope so.

I am frustrated that you won't open your mind to see all the signs of a case on track.

Well, what frustrates me (among MANY other things) is that you don't seem to understand that I don't see the signs of a case on track because, to me, they aren't there.

 

[Roy23]

You're right. You never pretended to be anything else. I fooled myself, just like always. I keep trying to handle snakes, and they always bite me.



We'll see, sir. We'll see.



Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen.



I figure we do enough of that for everybody.



I certainly hope so.



Well, what frustrates me (among MANY other things) is that you don't seem to understand that I don't see the signs of a case on track because, to me, they aren't there.

Actually Dave since we are talking about snakes.

A snake to me would be someone who would write a book accusing someone of something that they did not do. I understand you have a right of free speech and to your opinion. I also understand that you believe the people handling this case, even though you don't have all of their facts, are doing a good job.

The facts are that they know more than you do. You know that right. But let me say, if you are right that I think you are genius. If you are wrong, I hope you pay because it takes some serious gall to question this case now when you don't have facts. 14 years ago I might not feel this way but now with what has been said, I think different.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually Dave since we are talking about snakes.

A snake to me would be someone who would write a book accusing someone of something that they did not do. I understand you have a right of free speech and to your opinion. I also understand that you believe the people handling this case, even though you don't have all of their facts, are doing a good job.

The facts are that they know more than you do. You know that right. But let me say, if you are right that I think you are genius. If you are wrong, I hope you pay because it takes some serious gall to question this case now when you don't have facts. 14 years ago I might not feel this way but now with what has been said, I think different.

So....you're calling someone a snake? Expressing an opinion in writing doesn't make someone a snake. Publishing a LIE might. But this case is still an UNSOLVED murder. When we have a KNOWN killer, THEN other suspects are cleared. Until we know who did this, anyone may hold an opinion of who they feel is responsible. So in that case, until the TRUTH is known, these opinions are not lies.
Typical to resort to name-calling. We all have access to the same information. Some of it factual, but not all. And we each form opinions about the case based on what we read. Even facts can be interpreted differently. Obviously LE would have more facts on this case then the public because there is still a lot that hasn't been made public.
You don't have all the facts, either, yet if you were to put your own opinions down on paper (i.e. a book) I am sure you would not include yourself or any IDI, as having "serious gall" or being a snake.

 

[BBB167893]

Actually Dave since we are talking about snakes.

I didn't know we were, but I'm game.

A snake to me would be someone who would write a book accusing someone of something that they did not do.

That's a very big reason why I can't read Death of Innocence anymore.

I understand you have a right of free speech and to your opinion.

You could have fooled me, with all that talk about "tar and feathers."

I also understand that you believe the people handling this case, even though you don't have all of their facts, are doing a good job.

Inasmuch as they are doing their job. You're right about not knowing certain things, and one of those things is we don't know how much work is being put into it.

The facts are that they know more than you do. You know that right.

I'd say it's a strong likelihood.

But let me say, if you are right that I think you are genius.

You don't need my permission.

If you are wrong, I hope you pay because it takes some serious gall to question this case now when you don't have facts.

To me, Roy, I'd rather do what I feel is right and be wrong than be right and do nothing.

14 years ago I might not feel this way but now with what has been said, I think different.

It's odd: 14 years ago, I DID think differently than I do now.

 

[BBB167893]

So....you're calling someone a snake? Expressing an opinion in writing doesn't make someone a snake. Publishing a LIE might. But this case is still an UNSOLVED murder. When we have a KNOWN killer, THEN other suspects are cleared. Until we know who did this, anyone may hold an opinion of who they feel is responsible. So in that case, until the TRUTH is known, these opinions are not lies.
Typical to resort to name-calling. We all have access to the same information. Some of it factual, but not all. And we each form opinions about the case based on what we read. Even facts can be interpreted differently. Obviously LE would have more facts on this case then the public because there is still a lot that hasn't been made public.
You don't have all the facts, either, yet if you were to put your own opinions down on paper (i.e. a book) I am sure you would not include yourself or any IDI, as having "serious gall" or being a snake.

Thanks, DD.

 

[cynic]

Unless you have a specific report that in the case of these two (2) specific touch DNA profiles, things didn't happen completely, it can be assumed the default worked.

Unless you have a report that there was a full profile, there is no reason to assume it was not a partial profile.

It is reasonable to assume that 13 markers are present.

It is most certainly not.

It is unreasonable to suspect an incomplete or partial profile from the touch DNA, based on all existing news reports.

Not from skin cell scrapings it's not

You're raising doubt in all areas where doubt can be raised.

I'm raising doubt where it needs to be raised.

Nowhere do we hear that the touch DNA in this case produced a full profile.
You hear about it in other cases.

…more sophisticated testing (known as Minifiler DNA testing) provided a full profile. In late December, Johnson’s DNA profile was compared to the profile on the vaginal swab, and he was excluded; last week, state officials matched the profile to McNeal, whose DNA profile was in the state’s database of convicted offenders.
http://marketing.appliedbiosystems.com/images/Product_Microsites/Minifiler1106/pdf/articles/DNA_Exonerates_Man_after_26_Years_in_Angola.pdf

During the investigation, detectives ruled out 1,500 suspects, including 800 men whose DNA was taken after scientists used new technology to form a full profile of the killer last year.
http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses-crimes/13636208-1.html

The DNA from McGowan's case yielded a full profile that is now being run through state and federal databases, assistant prosecutor Mike Ware said. If a match is found, it could identify the true rapist.
http://truthinjustice.org/mcgowan.htm

Once again, as I’ve mentioned previously, the best DNA evidence and regular observance of full profiles comes from samples that are notoriously DNA “rich,” such as blood or semen. Skin cells are not, and consequently, full profiles are not the norm. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the study below.

A board composed of representatives from the four police and sheriffs’ departments participating in the project decides which samples to submit based on case background and the likelihood of developing a DNA profile. Officials can submit up to 66 samples at a time to Marshall for DNA testing, and MUFSC developed full or partial genetic profiles on 78 percent of the 65 samples initially submitted. Full profiles were developed on every blood and saliva sample and partial profiles were developed on 22 percent of the touch samples. There has been only one full profile developed from touch evidence.
http://www.justnet.org/TechBeat%20Files/SolvingCrimesDNA.pdf

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

According to Perez, out of 189 Touch DNA cases analyzed by the Marion County crime lab in 2008, police were able to obtain full and partial offender DNA profiles in 48% of those cases, compared to just a 5 percent success rate from fingerprints.http://www.buscovoice.com/2010/01/2...for-reducing-indiana-gun-and-burglary-crimes/


He says investigators submitted evidence for testing without considering what would work best. Analyses of doorknobs and other common surfaces yielded multiple or partial genetic profiles that often did not advance investigations.
Marone's labs began requiring more specific requests. Touch DNA tests have steadily increased in the past year, and he says they are yielding better results.
Ramsey developments
Like Cordle, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy learned about touch DNA at a conference.
Within weeks of the August 2007 gathering, sponsored by the Justice Department, prosecutors decided to consider new testing in the Ramsey case, a statement by the Boulder district attorney's office says.
Williamson, who supervised the Ramsey testing at Bode, says analysts spent hours with Boulder authorities to review evidence gathered 12 years earlier.
Evidence supported the "likelihood" that JonBenet's attacker removed her clothing and then redressed her, the statement says. Analysts scraped the waist areas of long johns JonBenet had on when her body was discovered in the basement of her home Dec. 26, 1996. Williamson says they were able to retrieve enough cells to produce an unidentified male profile.
The findings did not resolve the murder, but they excluded the 6-year-old's parents and brother. Lacy cleared the family and apologized for the suspicions that made their lives "an ongoing living hell."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-09-22-touchdna_N.htm

I believe you would like to insert the words 'partial', 'degraded', or 'unusable' inbetween 'male' and 'profile', right? But isn't that writing your own news?

In April, after Progovitz had resubmitted the case to a private lab in Virginia, she got a different kind of call. The lab had pulled a complete profile from clothing at the scene using touch DNA. It matched the DNA of the suspect whom police had in mind since rape, 12 years ago.

http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2008/09/touch-dna.html

Some touch DNA samples, however, do not qualify as
LCN samples in that they contain sufficient DNA for routine​

conventional analyses

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/CMJ_50(3)_BUDOWLE_19480017.pdf

Touch DNA -- using genetic material from skin cells left on an item -- is analyzed just like that from blood or semen. It's typically collected by scraping an object or placing tape on it, then lifting the tape up. The technique, in use for four or five years, gained some prominence this summer when it was used to exonerate the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, said Angela Williamson, director of forensic casework at Bode Technology, a Lorton-based DNA lab.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102276.html

I think you get the idea.

 

[cynic]

In April, after Progovitz had resubmitted the case to a private lab in Virginia, she got a different kind of call. The lab had pulled a complete profile from clothing at the scene using touch DNA. It matched the DNA of the suspect whom police had in mind since rape, 12 years ago.

http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2008/09/touch-dna.html

I think you get the idea.

Well, you proved my point nicely, in the story you highlightrd it's clear they had a full profile, where is there a similar headline for the touch DNA in this case?
Also, the study I cited shows that partial profiles are clearly the norm with respect to touch DNA.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, you proved my point nicely, in the story you highlightrd it's clear they had a full profile, where is there a similar headline for the touch DNA in this case?
Also, the study I cited shows that partial profiles are clearly the norm with respect to touch DNA.

Here you go:


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

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

Where is there a headline that refers to this touch DNA as partial, degraded, or unusable?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Remarkably, more than 20 years after the murder, all this testing and re-enacting paid off. Wheeler says they found a full profile of a male on the inside of Peggy's underpants. "Right where he had hypothesized where somebody would, with force, pull down the underwear."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/48hours/main4630559_page7.shtml

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

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