IDI: Whats your problem?

[DeeDee249]

The housekeeper reported that JB pooped in her bed on occasion, as well as her pants. Not just "didn't wipe well".

As far as the size of the panties- they WERE a problem- or else LE would not have made an issue of them. As to where the remaining pairs were- and the packaging, it's anyone's guess. No mention if the Rs sent the panties along years later with or without packaging, as far as I know.
What the police were trying to get at is the obvious implication of evidence of a sexual assault and why she may have been wearing panties that did not belong to her. Part of it was trying to discover if the panties were from the house, OR as they said when questioning Patsy, whether someone brought them in. But Patsy had said that they were the ones she bought, so that question was answered. That being said, they were trying to see if JB routinely wore underwear that did not fit. As they pointed out, ALL of her other panties were either size 4,6 or 8. NONE found were size 12.
The implication here, from LE's perspective, is whether someone removed her original panties (for the purposes of sexual assault) and replaced them with the larger panties (because they were right there in the basement). There is an implied (IMO) feeling that the original panties may have been bloodied, as drops of JB's blood were found on the bigger panties and also internally in the vaginal area.

 

[cynic]

I cannot see how RDI can maintain that the DNA came from within the house or on any object within the house. There were a certain number of people present that day (children I believe) so it's not as if it were a public place, so all these people would have been tested. That's why if you are talking about innocent DNA transfer, it would have had to come from outside of the home and the Rs possessions.

I have heard this many times; that is a remarkable degree of certainty, especially from such a vocal critic of the investigation.
It was Christmas, not only would there be the usual group of local kids present as potential innocent DNA donors; these kids may have been at the Ramsey home with friends or relatives visiting from out of town.
Not only is it uncertain that all of the local playmates of JBR and BR were tested, are you be so confident as to suggest that all non-locals may have been tested?
Moreover, there is the issue of consent, LE cannot simply grab a child and forcibly do a buccal swab to obtain a DNA sample. There would undoubtedly be some parents who would refuse to grant consent due to privacy or other concerns, or perhaps simply because they might regard the request as ridiculous.

I do see that you have, in your own mind, decided that there is a real chance that the touch DNA is innocent. To my mind though, it is so much more likely that an intruder deposited it there.

The DNA evidence suggests that two females got away with murder in the Janelle Patton case.
There is no DNA from blood, semen or urine in this case from an intruder.
If such evidence existed, I would be impressed.
This DNA evidence in the JBR case is merely a piece of the puzzle in a circumstantial case and to ascribe any further evidentiary value to it is merely spin.

Interesting that you bring the Janelle Patton issue up to demonstrate that DNA does not necessarily need to be deposited on a victim by her murderer.

It is interesting, and may I suggest, illuminating.

However in this case RDI cannot see how an intruder could have killed JBR and left so little evidence and then choose to dismiss as innocent the DNA evidence that was found in places that her murderer would have touched.

The DNA evidence in the JP case was also in places where, unquestionably, the murderer would have touched, and it was dismissed as innocent by the prosecutor, jury and appeals court.
When her body was found at a picnic spot, her shorts were pulled down, exposing her buttocks and pubic area.
The crown alleges that cuts through her shorts and underpants, as well as to her singlet top, were evidence the crime was sexually motivated.
But Mr Garling today suggested the damage to her clothing was staged to insinuate a sexual motive by a killer trying to cover their tracks.
…unidentified female DNA was found on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, as well as under the fingernails of her right hand.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/patton-killer-had-to-be-a-woman/2007/03/06/1173156490843.html#

 

[cynic]

And then there's the other side of the coin...all those criminal cases solved by DNA evidence. All those people sent to prison...

The State Patrol cases reveal that the technology has an Achilles' heel: human error.
Forensic scientists tainted tests with their own DNA in eight of the 23 cases. They made mistakes in six others, from throwing out evidence swabs to misreading results, fingering the wrong rape suspect. Tests were contaminated by DNA from unrelated cases in three examinations, and between evidence in the same case in another. The source of contamination in five other tests is unknown.
…
Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.
"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.
"What we're seeing in these 23 cases is really the tip of the iceberg."
That's because the lab is only catching obvious cases that likely signal more widespread problems, Thompson said.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

"Now, lets send this article of clothing with the waistband and have it tested for touch DNA. That is, tested for skin cells that are present in enough quantity for a CODIS profile and DNA that can be processed like blood or semen in the usual way (not LCN DNA)."
Test results are back.

Actually the test results are back, finding “non-self DNA” is not uncommon. This is from a 2 year old research study:
The potential of non-self DNA being present on the neck surface prior to physical assault had not however been considered by any group undertaking this research. The investigation of this unknown factor was therefore the primary objective of this chapter of work. The first phase of this project involved the recruitment of a small number of volunteers to ensure that DNA collection methods were appropriate and could be carried out rapidly without causing any discomfort to the individual being sampled. The effect of time since washing the neck, use of cosmetic products and the sex of the donor were also considered. This initial work concluded that time since washing neck did not appear to influence the amount of DNA collected from the neck surface and that there was no significant difference between the amount of material collected from male and female necks. The second phase involved the recruitment and sampling of 24 adult volunteers to investigate the levels of exogenous non-self DNA present on the adult neck surface, using the techniques refined during phase I. Examination of the results of DNA profiling revealed that non-self DNA was present on 23% of the neck surface areas sampled, suggesting that the normal level of exogenous DNA present due to innocent transfer may be sufficiently high to be detected in samples collected during the investigation of physical assault. These observations lead to the third phase, where this question was addressed. Again, following the examination of results from this phase, it was shown that non-self DNA components are observed in the resulting DNA profiles. The results of this work suggest that more investigation of normal levels of non-self DNA or DNA containing material present on the human skin surface is required to enable this factor to be considered during casework involving samples of this type.
Eleanor Alison May Graham BSc (Hons), MSc
Forensic Pathology Unit University of Leicester

Also:

We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer).
“DNA fingerprints from fingerprints,” Nature, June 19,1997 page 767. Roland A. H. van Oorschot and Maxwell K. Jones

Please don't forget that we already knew a criminal handled JBR's longjohns that night. This is a given, a case fact. Inarguable

If we include the Ramseys within your definition of criminal, then yes, your statement is true, otherwise it is arguable.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item.
International Congress Series, Volume 1261, April 2004, Pages 53-55
Attribution of DNA profiles to body fluid stains, C. Peel , and P. Gill

 

[MurriFlower]

=cynic;5542026]I have heard this many times; that is a remarkable degree of certainty, especially from such a vocal critic of the investigation.
It was Christmas, not only would there be the usual group of local kids present as potential innocent DNA donors; these kids may have been at the Ramsey home with friends or relatives visiting from out of town.
Not only is it uncertain that all of the local playmates of JBR and BR were tested, are you be so confident as to suggest that all non-locals may have been tested?
Moreover, there is the issue of consent, LE cannot simply grab a child and forcibly do a buccal swab to obtain a DNA sample. There would undoubtedly be some parents who would refuse to grant consent due to privacy or other concerns, or perhaps simply because they might regard the request as ridiculous.

Yes, I am a vocal critic of BDP and their handling of this case, so you are right, we can't be 100% sure that all the children who visited that morning were swabbed. Or the previous day or in the previous week. How long does touch DNA remain viable? An hour, a day, a week, a month, indefinitely? I think you said earlier that 30 'particles' are all that is needed from a deposit that could be thousands of particles? So, if touch DNA is so unreliable, why would it even be used at all in the investigation of crimes? I think I can answer that one -- because if a male touched the clothing in incriminating places, then there's a fairly good chance that he's involved. No, it doesn't automatically make him the killer, but when the owner of this DNA is eventually found (and I don't doubt it will happen sooner or later), then LE will need to look for further evidence of his involvement, he would not be convicted on DNA alone. Do you not agree? So, to assume you are correct and that there was no-one else and that PR herself transferred this DNA to the crime scene (and was therefore either the murderer or was herself involved) is premature. First find the owner of the DNA, then find out if it was innocently placed or not.

The DNA evidence suggests that two females got away with murder in the Janelle Patton case.
There is no DNA from blood, semen or urine in this case from an intruder.
If such evidence existed, I would be impressed.
This DNA evidence in the JBR case is merely a piece of the puzzle in a circumstantial case and to ascribe any further evidentiary value to it is merely spin.
It is interesting, and may I suggest, illuminating.
The DNA evidence in the JP case was also in places where, unquestionably, the murderer would have touched, and it was dismissed as innocent by the prosecutor, jury and appeals court.
When her body was found at a picnic spot, her shorts were pulled down, exposing her buttocks and pubic area.
The crown alleges that cuts through her shorts and underpants, as well as to her singlet top, were evidence the crime was sexually motivated.
But Mr Garling today suggested the damage to her clothing was staged to insinuate a sexual motive by a killer trying to cover their tracks.
…unidentified female DNA was found on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, as well as under the fingernails of her right hand.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/patton-killer-had-to-be-a-woman/2007/03/06/1173156490843.html#

I am generally not interested when people bring up other cases to back up some theory they have in this one. This is because it is distracting and in order to verify if what is said is actually true, I would need to look closely at all these other murders. However, in this particular case, I do have a little knowledge, so think I can comment generally about the similarities/differences to JBR's murder.

Although the cops wanted to fingerprint (palm print) everyone who was on the island that night, only around 80% of those eligible consented. Anyone's guess why the others declined, but there you are. This was in 2002. By the inquest, the cops had whittled the suspects down to 16. The person eventually convicted (G McN) was not amongst these 16. He was eventually arrested in 2006. Ironically, he had provided a fingerprint voluntarily regarding another matter.

G McN then CONFESSED to her murder!! Not only that, he told them how it had been done -- he had hit her with his car, panicked, put her 'body' in the trunk, and drove home to decide what to do. Later he opened the trunk and saw she was still alive, so he stabbed her, causing the fatal injury. The then dumped the body wrapping it in black plastic from the building site next door to his flat. He later retracted the confession, saying he had been suffering from a mental illness, and pleaded not guilty in court. It was on the black plastic that the palm print was left that was the main factor in his conviction. As well as this, there was other damning evidence in the trunk of his car that was also found on the body.

So, it is similar to the JMK confession, EXCEPT that evidence was found to back up the confession.

You are correct in saying that there was no DNA of G McN found but the DNA of others was found. There was also the issue that JP's body was found in the open and there had been a heavy storm between when it was dumped and discovered, so it's possible DNA may have been compromised. However, this did not stop him being convicted on other evidence.

G McN having now had some time to think on his situation, has come up with a scenario whereby he says he had to 'confess' to the murder as the real murders were threatening his family. However, he will not say who these people were, so I'm thinking it's possibly another manifestation of his 'mental condition', as it would be a simple matter to DNA test 'these people', although judging by the other evidence found (which convicted him) it is doubtful if G McN is totally innocent anyway. Perhaps he feels safer 'in there' with them 'outside'.

BTW the Mr Garling that you quoted is the defence counsel, not an expert witness, so I think his opinion may be a tad biased.

So if the DNA owner(s) is ever identified and is then subsequently named as the killer(s) by G McN, there would still need to be other evidence uncovered to overturn his conviction and charge these others with the murder.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What I don't understand is why all of you IDI's out there will not even consider the possibilty that JBR got out of her bed when they got home from the White's (if she was ever in it) and touched some new toys then went to use the bathroom and transferred the DNA onto her own waistband as she pulled down her longjohn bottoms. Then she had to pull down her panties and may have touched her own skin thus transferring an unknown DNA. Why is this so out of the question?

I don't know why RDI feels the need to come up with another wacky scenario for the presence of skin cells on JBR's clothing by some means other than its owner.

Oh, wait. I do know why. Never mind.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The potential of non-self DNA being present on the neck surface prior to physical assault had not however been considered by any group undertaking this research.

OK an adult neck is just like two places on JBR's longjohn waistband.

Simple copy-paste of bulk material to support your argument. Remember this isn't every other case, this is the JBR murder. You know she was not playing the slots in vegas. If you're really a DNA enthusiast then you probably know they could have more than 13 markers now. That skin cells are not limited to 10 or 13 markers. We really don't know how many markers they have.

Should I now copy and paste cases solved by DNA?

If we include the Ramseys within your definition of criminal, then yes, your statement is true, otherwise it is arguable.

Ding ding ding a winner. Of course we include the R's within this definition. We know a criminal of some sort handled the longjohns and probably did so at the waistband. Whether it be a parent, a pedophile, or a socialist revolutionary. Lets face it: it would've been a lot better for RDI if the DNA profile that they developed from the existing skin cells belonged to PR and not to some unknown mystery male. See what I mean?

I read that if more than one DNA profile is present they'll get the separate profiles. Suppose if both PR DNA and unknown male DNA were discovered. Would you then argue that an unknown male assailant handled one of PR's objects, and inadvertantly transferred PR DNA to the waistband along with his own?

The bias in your argument tends to preclude a rational discussion on the subject of DNA secondary transfer. We're not able to agree on the most likely scenario which is inarguably a direct transfer scenario. Its simply more likely that the skin cells in enough quantity to be picked up twice would've been placed there by none other than its owner. The match to the blood swab DNA simply underscores the find.

 

[Zak]

I don't know why RDI feels the need to come up with another wacky scenario for the presence of skin cells on JBR's clothing by some means other than its owner.

Oh, wait. I do know why. Never mind.

I don't know why IDI has to resort to name calling when presented with a theory other than intruder. (By the way, I have never dismissed one of your theories by calling it a name such as "wacky".) I'm sorry that you won't even consider the possiblity of secondary transfer.

 

[MurriFlower]

The housekeeper reported that JB pooped in her bed on occasion, as well as her pants. Not just "didn't wipe well".

Hmm the housekeeper reported this huh? Is this the same one who said PR discussed her sex life with her in graphic detail and asked for her advice?? She is an unreliable source IMO.

As far as the size of the panties- they WERE a problem- or else LE would not have made an issue of them. As to where the remaining pairs were- and the packaging, it's anyone's guess. No mention if the Rs sent the panties along years later with or without packaging, as far as I know.

Hmm again. I hadn't thought of this. So you reckon LE didn't find any size 12 panties? Were these panties actually labelled size 12 or were they really L (for Large) as per the Bloomingdales sizing chart I posted? Large is for sizes 10-12 which fit girls aged 8 to 10 years. Perhaps they were confused as you seem to be about the size.

Was JBR reduced to wearing these large panties because all the ones in her drawer were dirty?? Why might they be dirty?? Either they had been put back without being washed, or they hadn't been washed thoroughly. Now who was responsible for this do you think?? Someone who reckoned that girls that age should learn to be clean so if they think I'm going to wash her sh**y panties, they've got another thing coming........

BUT it does raise another issue. IF it is as you say, and they didn't find any of the 6 others in this set (regardless of whether they had Size 12 or Large written on them), you then have to wonder just where they went? Please, don't say PP took them in the golf bag, cause it's already overflowing LOL. I'm thinking that the old LE might have been telling a few 'porky pies' again, trying to trip up PR. Or, did someone else take them for their own larger child?

What the police were trying to get at is the obvious implication of evidence of a sexual assault and why she may have been wearing panties that did not belong to her. Part of it was trying to discover if the panties were from the house, OR as they said when questioning Patsy, whether someone brought them in. But Patsy had said that they were the ones she bought, so that question was answered.

Hmm (doing a lot of this today). I'd be interested to know if these panties she had on had ever been washed? LE should have been able to test for detergent residue as opposed to the residue from new-out-of-the-box ones. Of course PR would identify them as the ones she bought, because she bought them. BUT did they always stay in the house? It's a bit like the flashlight. It certainly looked like the one JAR bought his father, but JR said it was 'dirty'. Maybe it was taken, used and brought back that night? Maybe the panties were taken, used, then brought back too.

That being said, they were trying to see if JB routinely wore underwear that did not fit. As they pointed out, ALL of her other panties were either size 4,6 or 8. NONE found were size 12.
The implication here, from LE's perspective, is whether someone removed her original panties (for the purposes of sexual assault) and replaced them with the larger panties (because they were right there in the basement). There is an implied (IMO) feeling that the original panties may have been bloodied, as drops of JB's blood were found on the bigger panties and also internally in the vaginal area.

Not too sure about the theory of redressing due to the panties being bloodied. I'm thinking they would have been pulled down before the blood flowed and not pulled up again until after she was wiped and dead and therefore no more blood. Still it's food for thought. If you think the panties should have been bloodied, then why not the longjohns as well?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't know why IDI has to resort to name calling when presented with a theory other than intruder. (By the way, I have never dismissed one of your theories by calling it a name such as "wacky".) I'm sorry that you won't even consider the possiblity of secondary transfer.

The problem is RDI isn't considring the probability of secondary transfer:

1. From factory worker to underwear
2. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear
3. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear AND to one spot on longjohns.
4. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear AND to one spot on waistband of longjohns.
5. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
6. From playmate to JBR's hands to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
7. From playmate to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
8. From the criminal who we already know handled the longjohns but is NOT the DNA owner, to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
9. From DNA owner to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.

There's an exponential difference in probability between these scenarios. RDI refuses to consider these differences.

Instead, a never-ending supply of bulk fictional scenarios in feeble attempt to cover up the true nature of the DNA discoveries. A cover up of the factual circumstance where a criminal handled the lonjohns.

RDI needs some more DNA profiles to have shown up on JBR's clothing, in order to support any of these secondary transfer scenarios. As it is, there is no support for the claims. This makes all these bulk stories appear as a coverup of the true circumstances for the DNA discoveries. To obfuscate or prevent people from recognizing the most likely scenario: direct transfer of skin cells by its owner.

 

[Zak]

The problem is RDI isn't considring the probability of secondary transfer:

1. From factory worker to underwear
2. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear
3. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear AND to one spot on longjohns.
4. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear AND to one spot on waistband of longjohns.
5. From factory worker to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
6. From playmate to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
7. From the criminal who we already know handled the longjohns but is NOT the DNA owner, to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.
8. From DNA owner to blood spot in underwear AND to two spots on waistband of longjohns.

There's an exponential difference in probability between these scenarios. RDI refuses to consider these differences.

Instead, a never-ending supply of bulk fictional scenarios in feeble attempt to cover up the true nature of the DNA discoveries. A cover up of the factual circumstance where a criminal handled the lonjohns.

Excuse me, but I have considered the probability of secondary transfer. It makes no difference to me what the odds are on any of the theories of secondary transfer because it IS possible to have happened that way. Besides that I would consider the probabilty secondary transfer to be much higher than the probability of an intruder coming into the home undetected, writing a ransom note, kidnapping a child to the dining room, feeding her pineapple and iced tea, taking her to the basement to molest, wipeoff and redress her, then brutally murder the child, carefully hiding, wrapping her in her own blanket and leave the house undetected while only leaving behind 3 spots of his DNA.

 

[UKGuy]

Excuse me, but I have considered the probability of secondary transfer. It makes no difference to me what the odds are on any of the theories of secondary transfer because it IS possible to have happened that way. Besides that I would consider the probabilty secondary transfer to be much higher than the probability of an intruder coming into the home undetected, writing a ransom note, kidnapping a child to the dining room, feeding her pineapple and iced tea, taking her to the basement to molest, wipeoff and redress her, then brutally murder the child, carefully hiding, wrapping her in her own blanket and leave the house undetected while only leaving behind 3 spots of his DNA.

Zak,

You are correct. An IDI based upon touch-dna is very weak, verging on nonsense. Also Holdontoyourhat has already been reminded that the probability cannot be computed since its a random event, and there exists no mathematical model to cover it.

So its all rhetoric from the IDI ...


.

 

[cynic]

We really don't know how many markers they have.

Oh, how true, the touch DNA is probably fewer than 10 markers.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that not all DNA is “equal.”
I’m sure that at least we could agree that unidentified semen or blood on JBR would be highly inculpatory and damaging evidence.
That is not what we have here, we have DNA that is the least inculpatory of all possible types of DNA evidence, and that is a fact.
A single unidentified fingerprint in an incriminating location would be of more value than all of the DNA evidence in this case, and that is a fact.
The DNA in this case is, by nature, open to multiple innocent explanations, and that is a fact.

Of course we include the R's within this definition. We know a criminal of some sort handled the longjohns and probably did so at the waistband.

Just to be clear, there are also other transfer and contamination possibilities, including the coroner’s office.

Suppose if both PR DNA and unknown male DNA were discovered.

JR’s, PR’s, JBR’s and the unknown profile were all likely discovered.

Would you then argue that an unknown male assailant handled one of PR's objects, and inadvertantly transferred PR DNA to the waistband along with his own?

It is possible; many things are with this type of DNA.

The bias in your argument tends to preclude a rational discussion on the subject of DNA secondary transfer. We're not able to agree on the most likely scenario which is inarguably a direct transfer scenario. Its simply more likely that the skin cells in enough quantity to be picked up twice would've been placed there by none other than its owner. The match to the blood swab DNA simply underscores the find.

My bias, that’s rich. To provide people with the known issues surrounding this type of DNA evidence is hardly some sort of biased view.
When you buy a car, are you not interested in finding out the problems that others have experienced, or are you just happy to listen to the used car salesman (in this case played by ML) sing its praises?

Its simply more likely

Family members were found guilty in almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of the 1,990 solved cases of children and youth homicides in Canada between 1974 and 1999, according to Statistics Canada. Twenty-seven per cent of the murders were committed by acquaintances, and only 10 per cent by strangers.
http://canadiancrc.com/Child_Abuse/Canada-Child_Youth_Homicide_Murder_Statistics_Canadian_Center_Justice_Statistics.aspx

Add to this the circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys and I would suggest that looking at the “odds” is not your best course of action.

 

[MurriFlower]

Excuse me, but I have considered the probability of secondary transfer. It makes no difference to me what the odds are on any of the theories of secondary transfer because it IS possible to have happened that way. Besides that I would consider the probabilty secondary transfer to be much higher than the probability of an intruder coming into the home undetected, writing a ransom note, kidnapping a child to the dining room, feeding her pineapple and iced tea, taking her to the basement to molest, wipeoff and redress her, then brutally murder the child, carefully hiding, wrapping her in her own blanket and leave the house undetected while only leaving behind 3 spots of his DNA.

Excuse me Zak

If it makes no difference to you what the odds are, why are you saying in the next sentence that the probability that RDI is higher than IDI?

If you look closely, you will see that what you are suggesting is that the parent(s) did what you find unbelievable for an intruder to have done. Then to support this suggestion, you dismiss the most probable explanation for the evidence that refutes it.

Each person has come to a conclusion based on their own take on the evidence available. You have obviously made your choice.

 

[cynic]

Yes, I am a vocal critic of BDP and their handling of this case, so you are right, we can't be 100% sure that all the children who visited that morning were swabbed. Or the previous day or in the previous week. How long does touch DNA remain viable? An hour, a day, a week, a month, indefinitely? I think you said earlier that 30 'particles' are all that is needed from a deposit that could be thousands of particles? So, if touch DNA is so unreliable, why would it even be used at all in the investigation of crimes? I think I can answer that one -- because if a male touched the clothing in incriminating places, then there's a fairly good chance that he's involved.

My sole, minor disagreement is that you have ascribed a probability to it, although to your credit you have not been dogmatic, as some IDI’s and ML have been. (No innocent explanation, bombshell evidence, case closed etc.)
There are simply too many innocent transfer possibilities, not to mention contamination and lab interpretation issues to be able to give a probability.
You can say that it may be completely unrelated to the crime or it may belong to the perpetrator of the crime.
Trace DNA evidence of this type is used, and generally as a last resort, to develop leads and as simply another piece of circumstantial evidence against a suspect if other evidence suggests an arrest is warranted.

No, it doesn't automatically make him the killer, but when the owner of this DNA is eventually found (and I don't doubt it will happen sooner or later), then LE will need to look for further evidence of his involvement, he would not be convicted on DNA alone. Do you not agree?

Actually, I personally don’t believe there will ever be a match, but I do agree there would need to be further evidence to successfully prosecute an “intruder,” not that I believe one exists.

So, to assume you are correct and that there was no-one else and that PR herself transferred this DNA to the crime scene (and was therefore either the murderer or was herself involved) is premature. First find the owner of the DNA, then find out if it was innocently placed or not.

It’s not an issue of me being “correct,” as I don’t believe that I have ever said that my view was the only possibility. I have merely shown the other side of the DNA “coin,” and my purpose was to expose the fallacy and outrageousness of Mary Lacy’s proclamation that “there can be no innocent explanation.”
When you are trying to clear your friends, I guess there can be no innocent explanation.

BTW the Mr Garling that you quoted is the defence counsel, not an expert witness, so I think his opinion may be a tad biased.

I have read everything that I was able to find on the case, and therefore am familiar with everything you said.
I am not quoting Garling as an expert; what he said was derived from the prosecution expert (Australian Federal Police forensic biologist Joannah Lee) who testified with respect to all of the DNA evidence in the case.
There is no question whatsoever that two unidentified female DNA profiles were found in highly incriminating places, namely, JP’s shorts, underwear and fingernails.
And BTW, there was more unidentified DNA found, male DNA in G McN’s car where JP was placed at one point.

Australian Federal Police forensic biologist Joannah Lee today testified at his trial about DNA tests she conducted on material from Ms Patton's clothes, body and the plastic sheet, as well as items recovered from the Honda Civic.
Questioned by defence counsel Peter Garling, SC, Ms Lee said the number of items she examined ran to 15 pages, but none yielded a DNA profile matching McNeill's.
The trial heard Ms Lee could not obtain DNA profiles from certain material found in the boot of the Honda Civic, including dark hair and glass fragments.
A swab from the inside of the boot lid returned a partial male DNA profile but McNeill could be excluded as its source.
Ms Lee said she obtained no profile from swabs of Ms Patton's shoes, but the rain "may have affected any foreign DNA that could have been there".
Although Ms Lee found mixed DNA profiles on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, she said it appeared "that both the profiles were from a female".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...r-accused-found/2007/02/26/1172338538964.html

 

[Zak]

Excuse me Zak

If it makes no difference to you what the odds are, why are you saying in the next sentence that the probability that RDI is higher than IDI?

If you look closely, you will see that what you are suggesting is that the parent(s) did what you find unbelievable for an intruder to have done. Then to support this suggestion, you dismiss the most probable explanation for the evidence that refutes it.

Each person has come to a conclusion based on their own take on the evidence available. You have obviously made your choice.

I will try to more clear. I believe that it is possible that the DNA found in three places is from secondary transfer. I, also, believe that it is possible for the DNA to have been left there by an intruder. Both theories are possible. If the blanket, duct tape, cord, paint brush, flash light, pen/pad, pineapple bowl, wine cellar door, basement window and JBR's shirt are tested and contain that same unknown DNA, then I will agree IDI. If the 3 places already tested are the only items with this unknown DNA then I have to go with secondary transfer. It's very difficult for me to believe that an intruder was in that home for hours and spent a great deal of time with JBR and not to have left a fingerprint or a hair and plenty more of his touch DNA.

 

[MurriFlower]

I will try to more clear. I believe that it is possible that the DNA found in three places is from secondary transfer. I, also, believe that it is possible for the DNA to have been left there by an intruder. Both theories are possible.

Obviously whether your bias is towards RDI or IDI this will dictate what you believe.

However, what is most likely is that it was directly deposited by its owner and less likely that it got there by tertiary transfer. This is not secondary transfer as you suggest, we are talking about the DNA owner depositing it on an object and then a third person handling this same object and picking this DNA up on their hands and then depositing it on another three separate locations that are all within the 'sexual assault' area of the crime. Can you see why I believe that it's possible but not very likely?

If the blanket, duct tape, cord, paint brush, flash light, pen/pad, pineapple bowl, wine cellar door, basement window and JBR's shirt are tested and contain that same unknown DNA, then I will agree IDI.

You see, I have difficulty with this to the extent that there are already three separate places where there is DNA that matches and which are involved in the crime. You now believe that more places are needed and you say these must also be directly related to the crime.

If the 3 places already tested are the only items with this unknown DNA then I have to go with secondary transfer.

Why would you dismiss three places already found as not being significant enough, but you would concede you are wrong if other deposits of this same DNA is found? What number of places would satisfy you --1? 2? 5? 10?

It's very difficult for me to believe that an intruder was in that home for hours and spent a great deal of time with JBR and not to have left a fingerprint or a hair and plenty more of his touch DNA.

Equally, it is very difficult for me to believe that these parents killed their own daughter in such a violent and disgusting fashion, wrote the RN, left no evidence and then stayed true to their lie even on (her) deathbed.

So we have a stalemate.

 

[Zak]

Obviously whether your bias is towards RDI or IDI this will dictate what you believe.

However, what is most likely is that it was directly deposited by its owner and less likely that it got there by tertiary transfer. This is not secondary transfer as you suggest, we are talking about the DNA owner depositing it on an object and then a third person handling this same object and picking this DNA up on their hands and then depositing it on another three separate locations that are all within the 'sexual assault' area of the crime. Can you see why I believe that it's possible but not very likely?



You see, I have difficulty with this to the extent that there are already three separate places where there is DNA that matches and which are involved in the crime. You now believe that more places are needed and you say these must also be directly related to the crime.




Why would you dismiss three places already found as not being significant enough, but you would concede you are wrong if other deposits of this same DNA is found? What number of places would satisfy you --1? 2? 5? 10?


Equally, it is very difficult for me to believe that these parents killed their own daughter in such a violent and disgusting fashion, wrote the RN, left no evidence and then stayed true to their lie even on (her) deathbed.

So we have a stalemate.

I need more deposits of this DNA on items that an intruder would have touched because I believe that we all carry on us the DNA of other people. For example, I can only imagine how much unknown DNA is on my shoe's. If I happen to touch the bottom of one of my shoe's when I am taking them off and then touch the waistband of my jeans to unzip them, then I will have transferred that unknown DNA. Do you see what I mean?

I actually agree with you that it's difficult to believe that the parents did this to their daughter. By the same token, I read about mothers and/or fathers killing their children everyday and don't understand how they could do this. Things happen in life constantly that we can't begin to understand.

Yes, we may have a stalemate, but I hope that we can continue to discuss this.

 

[Ames]

Excuse me, but I have considered the probability of secondary transfer. It makes no difference to me what the odds are on any of the theories of secondary transfer because it IS possible to have happened that way. Besides that I would consider the probabilty secondary transfer to be much higher than the probability of an intruder coming into the home undetected, writing a ransom note, kidnapping a child to the dining room, feeding her pineapple and iced tea, taking her to the basement to molest, wipeoff and redress her, then brutally murder the child, carefully hiding, wrapping her in her own blanket and leave the house undetected while only leaving behind 3 spots of his DNA.

Exactly!!! That is the problem with IDI....after spending all of that time with JB, and writing a RN...he only leaves 3 spots of DNA!!! Yeah right....Like I said before, he must have been wearing a bee keepers suit. But, yet...Patsy's hair was found on the blanket...and her sweater fibers were found....well...all over the crime scene.

 

[Ames]

Excuse me Zak

If it makes no difference to you what the odds are, why are you saying in the next sentence that the probability that RDI is higher than IDI?

If you look closely, you will see that what you are suggesting is that the parent(s) did what you find unbelievable for an intruder to have done. Then to support this suggestion, you dismiss the most probable explanation for the evidence that refutes it.

Each person has come to a conclusion based on their own take on the evidence available. You have obviously made your choice.

IMO...if an intruder had of done it...it would have been intentional. My belief is that it was an accident...turned cover up....by the Ramseys.

 

[MurriFlower]

cynic;5544449]My sole, minor disagreement is that you have ascribed a probability to it, although to your credit you have not been dogmatic, as some IDI’s and ML have been. (No innocent explanation, bombshell evidence, case closed etc.)
There are simply too many innocent transfer possibilities, not to mention contamination and lab interpretation issues to be able to give a probability.

Not really. We are talking about someone touching the clothing, as opposed to someone touching something that someone else had touched, who subsequently touched the areas related to the crime. So I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that the DNA is more likely to have been deposited directly.

You can say that it may be completely unrelated to the crime or it may belong to the perpetrator of the crime.

Now, as I said, this may be the killer or an accomplice. Less likely but still possible, contamination at the crime scene (BPD/coroner). Even less likely still, tertiary transfer of DNA belonging to one individual by the hand of another individual.

Trace DNA evidence of this type is used, and generally as a last resort, to develop leads and as simply another piece of circumstantial evidence against a suspect if other evidence suggests an arrest is warranted.
Actually, I personally don’t believe there will ever be a match, but I do agree there would need to be further evidence to successfully prosecute an “intruder,” not that I believe one exists.

Perhaps in future DNA evidence may be traced without the need to have the individual's DNA on file. There may even be another method developed that is more accurate than DNA. That'll make it interesting!

It’s not an issue of me being “correct,” as I don’t believe that I have ever said that my view was the only possibility. I have merely shown the other side of the DNA “coin,” and my purpose was to expose the fallacy and outrageousness of Mary Lacy’s proclamation that “there can be no innocent explanation.”
When you are trying to clear your friends, I guess there can be no innocent explanation.

Well, you make no secret that you think that there was no intruder. This appears to make you RDI, but whether you believe it was PR or not I don't know.

I have read everything that I was able to find on the case, and therefore am familiar with everything you said.
I am not quoting Garling as an expert; what he said was derived from the prosecution expert (Australian Federal Police forensic biologist Joannah Lee) who testified with respect to all of the DNA evidence in the case.
There is no question whatsoever that two unidentified female DNA profiles were found in highly incriminating places, namely, JP’s shorts, underwear and fingernails.
And BTW, there was more unidentified DNA found, male DNA in G McN’s car where JP was placed at one point.

Australian Federal Police forensic biologist Joannah Lee today testified at his trial about DNA tests she conducted on material from Ms Patton's clothes, body and the plastic sheet, as well as items recovered from the Honda Civic.
Questioned by defence counsel Peter Garling, SC, Ms Lee said the number of items she examined ran to 15 pages, but none yielded a DNA profile matching McNeill's.
The trial heard Ms Lee could not obtain DNA profiles from certain material found in the boot of the Honda Civic, including dark hair and glass fragments.
A swab from the inside of the boot lid returned a partial male DNA profile but McNeill could be excluded as its source.
Ms Lee said she obtained no profile from swabs of Ms Patton's shoes, but the rain "may have affected any foreign DNA that could have been there".
Although Ms Lee found mixed DNA profiles on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, she said it appeared "that both the profiles were from a female".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...r-accused-found/2007/02/26/1172338538964.html

Although Ms Lee found mixed DNA profiles on Ms Patton's shorts and underpants, she said it appeared "that both the profiles were from a female".

How curious! Didn't we discuss this just recently? I thought that it was you cynic, who gave the impression that gender was very easy to determine from DNA profiles, however, this quote gives the impression that it may not be difinitive.