IDI: Whats your problem?

[UKGuy]

Ha ha! Nice Try Cynic. The BPD's first order of business was to test all LE personnel involved in the case. And make note that Cyril makes mention that they have useful DNA from under a fingernail. All the people who still are investigating know they have egg on their face but it is comical to me that the ones who were initially involved but not now hold on to past theories.

You think that touch DNA is like air that it floats around all of us. As much as Holdon keeps explaining it, nobody is listening. And Wecht is wrong on another thing too. This case is gonna get solved. And we are all gonna feel so stupid because it will be real simple had they done their jobs.

Roy23,

Cyril makes mention that they have useful DNA from under a fingernail.

What kind of useful dna? Saliva-dna, blood-dna, skin-dna, follicle-dna, semen-dna?

You think that touch DNA is like air that it floats around all of us.

em, I think because its named touch-dna, that means its primary cause of transfer is by persons touching objects that already have some type of touch-dna deposited on their surface?

Semen-dna would exclusively place a male intruder at the scene of the crime, simply citing touch-dna, is no smoking-gun!

Until you have a match to this unknown and unmatched touch-dna, anyone can say anything they want about it, including that it does not exclude the Ramseys, which of course it does not, since anyone of them may have deposited the touch-dna at any point, particularly Patsy, as she gift-wrapped the size-12's, maybe she handled the size-12's prior to wrapping?

Then of course IDI will say it was the intruder who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's. So maybe he transferred the touch-dna, originally deposited on the gift-wrapping paper by Patsy, onto the size-12's?

Building an IDI theory on the back of touch-dna is pretty weak, never mind clearing the Ramseys, when nobody knows anything about its origin!


.

 

[MurriFlower]

Roy23,



What kind of useful dna? Saliva-dna, blood-dna, skin-dna, follicle-dna, semen-dna?


em, I think because its named touch-dna, that means its primary cause of transfer is by persons touching objects that already have some type of touch-dna deposited on their surface?

Semen-dna would exclusively place a male intruder at the scene of the crime, simply citing touch-dna, is no smoking-gun!

Until you have a match to this unknown and unmatched touch-dna, anyone can say anything they want about it, including that it does not exclude the Ramseys, which of course it does not, since anyone of them may have deposited the touch-dna at any point, particularly Patsy, as she gift-wrapped the size-12's, maybe she handled the size-12's prior to wrapping?

Then of course IDI will say it was the intruder who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's. So maybe he transferred the touch-dna, originally deposited on the gift-wrapping paper by Patsy, onto the size-12's?

Building an IDI theory on the back of touch-dna is pretty weak, never mind clearing the Ramseys, when nobody knows anything about its origin!

It's about time this myth of the size 12 Bloomies was explored. It has become like Chinese Whispers - every person adds a little bit until the story bears little resemblence to fact.

I recently came across a part of an interview with PR about the Bloomies panties, but unfortunately did not save it and don't have time at present to find it again. Hopefully there is someone here who is better at filing and retrieving information than me, who can post it on this forum.

PR was asked why JBR would have been found in panties that were too large for her. There was no evidence shown to PR to demonstrate this (the picture of the panties wasn't to hand apparently), so we are left to assume that this is a fact, but was not sourced. So the interview revealed that basically, PR and JBR went on a shopping trip when the Bloomies panties for JBR and her cousin were purchased. The cousin's were to be a gift, but PR said they made their way into JBRs room and were subsequently just used by her along with her regular panties.

So, I think we can expel the myth that:

1. The panties were gift wrapped in the wine cellar
2. JBR was re-dressed in clean (but oversided) underwear
3. The size of the panties were in any way related to the crime.

I have to confess that I have contributed unwittingly to the 'panty myth' myself, believing the story about the gift wrapping and the re-dressing from the gift in the wine cellar. I regret reinforcing what I now see to have been untrue and irrelevant in this crime.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary about the panties, I would be interested to see it.

 

[cynic]

The BPD's first order of business was to test all LE personnel involved in the case.

Did they?
Also, we know the coroner didn’t use proper procedure when clipping JBR’s nails. (Using the same clippers between decedents is outrageous.) What other improper practices did he employ that may have jeopardized the validity of the DNA findings.

And make note that Cyril makes mention that they have useful DNA from under a fingernail.

Cyril must have heard Ollie or Lin make some wild claim in print or on air and mistakenly believed it to be true. Lou Smit in a depo spelled out the truth, 2 markers. That is completely meaningless DNA.

All the people who still are investigating know they have egg on their face but it is comical to me that the ones who were initially involved but not now hold on to past theories.

The past theories are as valid now as they were then. All that has changed is the touch DNA finding which may or may not be relevant.

You think that touch DNA is like air that it floats around all of us.

That’s a fascinating mischaracterization of my posts on the subject.
Touch DNA is subject to far more issues than DNA from body fluids, including, but not limited to, secondary transfer, contamination, and low sample size.

As much as Holdon keeps explaining it, nobody is listening.

I heard all of those explanations from the source, ML.

Essentially the argument boils down to whether there can be “an innocent explanation” for the DNA in this case. In ML’s official letter to the Ramseys, she said there can be no innocent explanation. This is where I disagree.

 

[Roy23]

Did they?
Also, we know the coroner didn’t use proper procedure when clipping JBR’s nails. (Using the same clippers between decedents is outrageous.) What other improper practices did he employ that may have jeopardized the validity of the DNA findings.
Cyril must have heard Ollie or Lin make some wild claim in print or on air and mistakenly believed it to be true. Lou Smit in a depo spelled out the truth, 2 markers. That is completely meaningless DNA.
The past theories are as valid now as they were then. All that has changed is the touch DNA finding which may or may not be relevant.
That’s a fascinating mischaracterization of my posts on the subject.
Touch DNA is subject to far more issues than DNA from body fluids, including, but not limited to, secondary transfer, contamination, and low sample size.
I heard all of those explanations from the source, ML.

Essentially the argument boils down to whether there can be “an innocent explanation” for the DNA in this case. In ML’s official letter to the Ramseys, she said there can be no innocent explanation. This is where I disagree.

Cynic,

Just a thought but since ML has been very critical of the DNA in the past and had strongly considered that transfer was innocent maybe it is other testing and opinions from the experts that did more testing that has convinced her that it is not innocent. The fact that ML has changed her mind only bolsters IDI even more than before.

 

[Roy23]

So you think that Dr. Wecht, one of the most respected forensic pathologists in the country, is wrong and that a poster here, Holdon, whom I respect very much but feel probably is NOT a forensic pathologist, knows more about the forensic science of this case? Now it's MY turn to say HA HA! Nice try, Roy.

I think Dr. Wecht is a professional. I also think he knows nothing of all the new findings that LE now has. Dr. Wecht's opinions are based on someone being undetected in that house without leaving behind more trace evidence. Had the police done their jobs, I think he may feel differently.

I had no problem a long time ago with people suspecting the Ramsey's. But time doesn't stand still and somewhere the major players still in this game did a 180. You can think outside the box or live in the past. I keep urging people to read Beckner's and ML's statements and the answer is right there for you.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is the DNA of someone other than JB or her family. That is all.

This seems a bit terse. And it is obviously completely disregarding a very important concept in forensic pathology: context.


By your reasoning, there is no difference in evidentiary value between finding skin cells from an unknown male on each side of JBR's waistband vs. the handles of shopping bags left lying on the floor. And that doesn't even factor in the inside crotch blood spot swab DNA that matches!

 

[BBB167893]

A truly rare moment of clarity for ML.

I have to go against you for once, cynic. I'm convinced now she only said that as a way to go forward with charging him if the DNA came back no match. Obviously, that didn't work.

… Which will forever be a testament to her bias and incompetence.

Like the proverbial albatross.

The only tune ML has ever been known to sing is “the Ramseys are innocent and I’ll clear them if it’s the last thing I do.”

Yeah, she's been consistent on that since Day One.

 

[BBB167893]

Ha ha! Nice Try Cynic. The BPD's first order of business was to test all LE personnel involved in the case.

This is one area where HOTYH and I are in sync, Roy. He suggested a while ago that with such a chaotic investigation, it's not outside the realm of possibility that not everyone was tested. Even Bill Wise said it wasn't likely.

Still, I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

it will be real simple had they done their jobs.

Finally, something we agree on. If they HAD done their jobs, it would have been really simple.

 

[BBB167893]

So you think that Dr. Wecht, one of the most respected forensic pathologists in the country, is wrong and that a poster here, Holdon, whom I respect very much but feel probably is NOT a forensic pathologist, knows more about the forensic science of this case? Now it's MY turn to say HA HA! Nice try, Roy.

Now THAT's funny.

 

[UKGuy]

It's about time this myth of the size 12 Bloomies was explored. It has become like Chinese Whispers - every person adds a little bit until the story bears little resemblence to fact.

I recently came across a part of an interview with PR about the Bloomies panties, but unfortunately did not save it and don't have time at present to find it again. Hopefully there is someone here who is better at filing and retrieving information than me, who can post it on this forum.

PR was asked why JBR would have been found in panties that were too large for her. There was no evidence shown to PR to demonstrate this (the picture of the panties wasn't to hand apparently), so we are left to assume that this is a fact, but was not sourced. So the interview revealed that basically, PR and JBR went on a shopping trip when the Bloomies panties for JBR and her cousin were purchased. The cousin's were to be a gift, but PR said they made their way into JBRs room and were subsequently just used by her along with her regular panties.

So, I think we can expel the myth that:

1. The panties were gift wrapped in the wine cellar
2. JBR was re-dressed in clean (but oversided) underwear
3. The size of the panties were in any way related to the crime.

I have to confess that I have contributed unwittingly to the 'panty myth' myself, believing the story about the gift wrapping and the re-dressing from the gift in the wine cellar. I regret reinforcing what I now see to have been untrue and irrelevant in this crime.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary about the panties, I would be interested to see it.

MurriFlower.
Its all about Patsy, she has amnesia, and is inconsistent in some of her statements:

Patsy was gift-wrapping in the basement

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview
1 Q. You talked about, in your '98
2 interview, that you, on the 24th, that you
3 were in the basement and you were wrapping
4 presents. Do you know, when you were doing
5 that, whether or not you had on that coat?

Patsy states she placed size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview
12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.
13 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time,
14 how old was Jenny?

But police contradict Patsy's statement that the size-12's were placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to
0094
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.

e.g.
Patsy confirms that the size-12's are Ramsey property and that no intruder brought them into the house.

Then there are fibers from Patsy's jacket.

7 MR. LEVIN: I can state to you,
8 Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of
9 the scientific examination of fibers, that,
10 based on the state of the art technology,
11 that I believe, based on testing, that fibers
12 from your client's coat are in the paint
13 tray.

And ...


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)

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

See in the wine-cellar the gift at bottom of photo in FAO Schwartz wrapping paper.

A fuller picture is:

You can see JonBenet on xmas-morning with a FAO Schwartz wrapped gift to her left.

Interviews about the partially wrapped presents.

June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane

0271
24 LOU SMIT: Okay. we'll get off that subject
25 for just a little while, may be I'll come back to

0272
1 it later. I'm going to just touch a little bit on
2 presents, okay?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
4 LOU SMIT: And I wanted to do that and
5 kind
6 of lead into various photographs, okay? I've got
7 photographs of the wine cellar. And these were
8 taken during the course of the crime scene
9 investigation. And it shows various presents in
10 the wine cellar. And I just had a couple questions
11 on that.
12 It's 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 -- I'm sorry. We'll
13 eliminate those 266, 267 and 268. we'll just
14 concentrate on the first three. And we'll just
15 show that to the camera and that will make up
16 somewhat of an image. Do you have any comments
17 about that, or does anything that looks out of
18 place? Because you're the one that knows basically
19 your house.

0272
20 JOHN RAMSEY: Well Patsy had gotten a bunch
21 of gifts at FAO Swartz up in New York in early
22 December, some of which were for them were for
23 Burke's birthday, which was in January. She didn't
24 know they were in the closet exactly,

...

0273
13 LOU SMIT: You notice how the packages seem
14 to be partially opened. Can you explain this?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I can't.
16 LOU SMIT: So Patsy had gone there and
17 just kind looked to see what was (INAUDBILE)?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: It's possible. (INAUDIBLE) I mean,
19 you can figure out what's in them. The cigar box
20 was sitting on a paint can, or something like
21 that. And I believe it shouldn't have.

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

0390
18 TOM HANEY: Okay. And on Christmas Eve, when
19 you went in there --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
21 TOM HANEY: -- this wasn't there?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
23 TOM HANEY: How about the blanket?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
25 TRIP DEMUTH: If we could go back, kind of

0391
1 skipped over a couple of pictures here, 145.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: There is the bicycle.
3 TRIP DEMUTH: I have a question for you, 148
4 here.
5 PATSY RAMSEY: These were gifts I think I was
6 holding back for Burke's birthday.
7 TRIP DEMUTH: They are in the red and white
8 and yellow FAO Schwartz wrapping?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
10 TRIP DEMUTH: Now in 148 there is also this
11 white pocket, do you know what that is?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Huh-uh, it looks like cotton.
13 I don't know.
14 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. It is hard to sort of
15 figure out where all of these pictures are taken, but
16 there is another package over here.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
18 TRIP DEMUTH: Does that look out of place or
19 in the proper place?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I had -- you know, I
21 stacked up some packages along there (inaudible).
22 Kicked (inaudible) or something. I kind of have it
23 backed up here.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. So the packages in 146,
25 it looks like it is out of place to you?

0392
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh. Yeah. See, that
2 looks -- the door would be here.
3 TRIP DEMUTH: It is hard.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: So that would be back in here
5 somewhere. I was right in front of the door.
6 TRIP DEMUTH: No. Here are the screens. You
7 see the screens over here, the small screens, so it is
8 more back in this.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I would tuck them
10 there.
11 TRIP DEMUTH: I guess the point is, there
12 wasn't one that was off by itself. They should have
13 all been together.
14 The location in picture 148 is the correct
15 place for all of the packages to have been?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
17 TOM HANEY: Before we go on, could we just
18 talk briefly about the packages, these were presents
19 for whom, the ones that were left in there?
0392
20 PATSY RAMSEY: I believe for, you know, I
21 held some back for Burke's birthday which is in
22 January.
23 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
24 TOM HANEY: So that could have been that.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't remember what

0393
1 was in them.
2 TOM HANEY: Would any of these packages be
3 opened?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably. Well, see, these
5 came up, I was at FAO Schwartz in New York when
6 JonBenet and I were up there for a trip, and I had them
7 sent back to Boulder and they wrapped them, free gift
8 wrapping.
9 So like right here it looks like I kind of
10 peeled a little back to see what was in it because I
11 couldn't remember what was in them.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: If the wrapping has been undone
13 partially, that was --
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I probably would have done
15 that to peek to see what was in there.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
17 TOM HANEY: Where did you do the bulk of your
18 Christmas shopping, the items you put in there?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, all of this stuff right
20 here was from FAO Schwartz in New York. JonBenet got a
21 bicycle that year. I got a university bicycle, and she
22 got a twin doll which I mail ordered, and --
23 TOM HANEY: Did she get to ride her bike?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: She got to ride her bike.
25 TOM HANEY: Christmas day?

0394
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Out in the back driveway.
2 TOM HANEY: You don't remember the weather
3 that day, was --
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Sunny, nice.
5 TOM HANEY: So did she get much time on it?
6 Was it training wheel equipped or was she able to ride
7 a two wheeler by herself?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think it had training
9 wheels. I think it did.
10 TOM HANEY: Did she get much time on it?
11 Could you give us a glue.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: No idea; riding out in the
13 back.
14 TOM HANEY: But she was able to handle it,
15 she didn't crash or anything?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

 

[BBB167893]

PR was asked why JBR would have been found in panties that were too large for her. There was no evidence shown to PR to demonstrate this (the picture of the panties wasn't to hand apparently), so we are left to assume that this is a fact, but was not sourced. So the interview revealed that basically, PR and JBR went on a shopping trip when the Bloomies panties for JBR and her cousin were purchased. The cousin's were to be a gift, but PR said they made their way into JBRs room and were subsequently just used by her along with her regular panties.

That's the way I understand it. Over at Forumsforjustice, there's a picture (at least used to be) of a kid JB's age wearing panties those size and how awkward they'd be.

So, I think we can expel the myth that:

1. The panties were gift wrapped in the wine cellar

Hard to say.

2. JBR was re-dressed in clean (but oversided) underwear

No, I'm pretty sure we can rule that one in. If for no other reason than one would have to explain what she was doing wearing the oversized ones all that day.

3. The size of the panties were in any way related to the crime.

Maybe in a secondary way.

 

[BBB167893]

Roy, I hope you'll excuse me for butting in, but I cannot proceed in good conscience without addressing a few things.

Just a thought but since ML has been very critical of the DNA in the past and had strongly considered that transfer was innocent maybe it is other testing and opinions from the experts that did more testing that has convinced her that it is not innocent. The fact that ML has changed her mind only bolsters IDI even more than before.

I'm afraid that's not how it went. Mary Lacy was never critical of the DNA in any meaningful way, and to my knowledge, NEVER considered (much less strongly) that the DNA was in any way innocent. In fact, to hear John Douglas tell it (and I don't know how trustworthy he can be), when ML took over the case back in 2003, she and Douglas had a big laugh over the BPD's notion that it COULD be innocent. I think the only reason she hedged her bets on it at all during the JMK fiasco is because she felt like she was cornered. She'd gone out on a limb bringing this obvious wack-job out of obscurity and was trying to set up a possible excuse for going ahead with charges against him even if the DNA tests came back negative. But that's a far cry from what you're saying. You're making it out like it was Nixon going to China, and as I've told you many times, it was anything but. Indeed, it was more like Lenin going to Russia (in more ways than one).

I had no problem a long time ago with people suspecting the Ramsey's.

Could have fooled me.

But time doesn't stand still and somewhere the major players still in this game did a 180.

Well, you're half-right. Time does not stand still. But your assertion that the major players did a 180 is wrong, to be polite. When Mary Lacy took over this case in 2003, she'd already been a fervent IDI from Day One. Even a cursory glance at the statements of people who knew her back then will bear that out. And she deliberately hired an investigative team of people she KNEW shared her views and had for a long time: Lou Smit (RIP), John Douglas, and the two private investigators, Gray and San Augustin, while making sure that anyone not in lockstep with her was cut out, including Mark Beckner and Michael Kane, the man who probably knew the case best and had a lot more prosecutorial experience than she did.

Now, if you want to defend that investigative decision, feel free to do so. I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone COULD defend it, but I won't stop you. But that's a fair sight different from what you're asserting.

You can think outside the box or live in the past.

Mind if I take a third option?

I keep urging people to read Beckner's and ML's statements and the answer is right there for you.

I urge people to read a lot of statements. And you're right: the answer is there for people who choose to look.

 

[MurriFlower]

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to
0094
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.

So, I think you are confusing size 12 with aged 12. Perhaps because at 6 years old she was wearing size 6 you automatically assume that these size 12 panties are double the size, whereas, they are recommended for 9-10 year olds. The panties currently in stock at Bloomingdales come in Small, Medium and Large, so there is a range of ages that fit each size. For example, Large size fits girls between 8 and 10 years old and these are sizes 10 and 12. (Confusing for men I suppose).

http://www1.bloomingdales.com/popup/vendorSizingChart_kids.jsp?kids_apparel.jpg

 

[cynic]

I dont think Dr. Wecht understands that JR's skin cells may have been there but weren't tested.

I think Wecht understands just fine.
Whatever cells were in the area scraped, would contribute to the DNA profile generated from that sample. It would be a mixed profile, which is often the case in profiles from touch DNA.
Touch DNA does not discriminate between donor cells. That’s why labs that do touch DNA testing try as best they can to limit the test area (by guessing) to one that only the perpetrator of the crime may have contacted.
(There is no question that PR, by her own admission, would have contacted the area tested.)
Below is a video that may help you to understand how multiple contributors may be found in a crime scene profile.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_XPAf13VZg[/ame]

Did JR raise or lower the leggings? No.

JR knows, you don’t.

We don't know this.

Exactly.

Did a criminal raise and lower the leggings? Yes. We do know this.

Only if you include R’s in your definition of criminal.

RDI thinks the criminal was PR but her skin cells were never found there.

As has been posted previously, it wouldn’t be unusual to not report finding the profile of the person who admitted to dressing JBR and making contact in precisely the area that was tested.

Believe me they looked.

I believe you.

Instead, its the skin cells from a mystery man. Lab workers aren't reallty mystery men because they've all been subjected to DNA testing to rule out innocent transfer. Wecht speaks as if that effort never took place!

If Meyer handled other items of evidence in the same manner that he handled JBR’s fingernails, then I’m afraid anything is possible.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think Wecht understands just fine.
Whatever cells were in the area scraped, would contribute to the DNA profile generated from that sample. It would be a mixed profile, which is often the case in profiles from touch DNA.
Touch DNA does not discriminate between donor cells. That’s why labs that do touch DNA testing try as best they can to limit the test area (by guessing) to one that only the perpetrator of the crime may have contacted.
(There is no question that PR, by her own admission, would have contacted the area tested.)
Below is a video that may help you to understand how multiple contributors may be found in a crime scene profile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_XPAf13VZg
JR knows, you don’t.
Exactly.
Only if you include R’s in your definition of criminal.
As has been posted previously, it wouldn’t be unusual to not report finding the profile of the person who admitted to dressing JBR and making contact in precisely the area that was tested.

I believe you.

If Meyer handled other items of evidence in the same manner that he handled JBR’s fingernails, then I’m afraid anything is possible.

This DNA argument could go on forever with no clear winner. But just on the story that PR, in putting on the leggings, would have transferred the DNA of some unknown person that she picked up on her hands from goodnessknowswhere to the same points on the leggings that were tested for touch DNA for someone taking off the leggings. Picture in your mind a sleeping child and a parent putting on leggings. (Women who wear panty hose will know the routine). To get them on, you roll them up to the feet and put the feet in first, then you pull each leg up half way and grab the back and front and pull them up. Now picture the IDI removing the leggings. He grabs them on either side and pulls them down. Two different movements.

 

[cynic]

I have to go against you for once, cynic. I'm convinced now she only said that as a way to go forward with charging him if the DNA came back no match. Obviously, that didn't work.

You weren’t really going against me. I never said she was sincere. :biggrin:
My thinking is that it was a face-saving statement in case things went bad.
Your view, however, is more likely now that I think about it.

 

[cynic]

Picture in your mind a sleeping child and a parent putting on leggings. (Women who wear panty hose will know the routine). To get them on, you roll them up to the feet and put the feet in first, then you pull each leg up half way and grab the back and front and pull them up. Now picture the IDI removing the leggings. He grabs them on either side and pulls them down. Two different movements.

There would be contact with the waistband to pull them into place, there's just no doubt about that.

This DNA argument could go on forever.

It already has.

 

[MurriFlower]

There would be contact with the waistband to pull them into place, there's just no doubt about that.
It already has.

You are saying that PR touched something that had been touched by an unknown male at her friend's house and transferred this to the leggings. So is this touch-DNA is so abundant that you can touch any number of things and leave sufficient DNA for testing on each item? Or are you are saying that PR kept her hands closed from then until she touched the waistband of her daughter's leggings and transferred the DNA to them?

Do you honestly believe this could happen?

 

[cynic]

You are saying that PR touched something that had been touched by an unknown male at her friend's house and transferred this to the leggings. So is this touch-DNA is so abundant that you can touch any number of things and leave sufficient DNA for testing on each item? Or are you are saying that PR kept her hands closed from then until she touched the waistband of her daughter's leggings and transferred the DNA to them?

Do you honestly believe this could happen?

As few as 30 cells will produce a DNA profile using standard procedures, studies have shown as much as 10 -15 thousand cells can be picked up in a transfer.
Multiple studies have validated secondary transfer.

 

[cynic]

Just a thought but since ML has been very critical of the DNA in the past and had strongly considered that transfer was innocent maybe it is other testing and opinions from the experts that did more testing that has convinced her that it is not innocent.

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
She only ever made one statement with respect to the possibility of the DNA being from an innocent source, and under the circumstances during which it was made, her motivation is suspect.

In addition to what SD has said, I will add the following.
The record is clear that ML was a very strong IDI proponent throughout her reign as DA.
I believe that any seemingly corroborating evidence regardless of its true probative value would have provided the excuse for her reckless exoneration of the Ramseys.
I do not believe her decision was based on an evaluation of the case as a whole versus simply the "weight" of the DNA.
The fact that her term as DA was running out was also very significant with respect to her actions.