IDI: Whats your problem?

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

PR lint is just weaker than blood swab DNA, doncha think? Besides, your oft-touted fiber turns out to be ill-sourced. There's no expert fiber testimony and you've never seen this fiber evidence. Its not reported in the news, and its a myth used in a despicable attempt by investigators to make PR believe they had 'smoking gun' evidence she had killed her daughter. What you state as fact is really just a remnant of a lie.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I, also, believe that it is possible for the DNA to have been left there by an intruder.

Getting RDI to acknowledge this is like getting a root canal. You're a step ahead of the others, I'll tell you that.

The relative probability is vastly different however. That is, to get someone to shed someone else's skin cells but not their own. Twice.:banghead:

 

[MurriFlower]

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.

Yes, I think we got that. However, I believe it was intentional and it wasn't a cover up. I think she was targeted and murdered, not once but twice!! If her neck had been broken (as I think was attempted) that would have made her three-times killed. That's not an accident.

 

[MurriFlower]

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?

BUT you need to have an item that firstly incriminates the DNA owner (in a sexual assault the panties/longjohns are indicated) then you have to guess where he would have handled them and scrape that area to find touch DNA. The cord, the paintbrush, the tape would have yielded touch DNA if the IDI took off his gloves at some point and if they haven't been tested then maybe they should be. If the same DNA was found, would you then give it up for IDI? What if DNA of another person was found on these items instead?

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 of course, but this isn't your 'typical' killing in any way, shape or form.

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

Happy always to discuss this with people who have open minds.

 

[claudicici]

I do not believe it was an accident covered up either.
Whether RDI or IDI I believe it was intentional and evolved from a fantasy inside of someone's head to a horrible reality.

 

[UKGuy]

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.

MurriFlower,

You need an intruder to first to decide which event is more likely or probable than another, and this is your mistake.

You are assuming that there was an intruder then assigning probabilities to those events.

Then you are saying We are talking about someone touching the clothing. Correction : We, RDI is not assuming that only an intruder touched the clothing, RDI takes into account that anyone including JonBenet may have touched her clothing.

So your notion that an intruder was more likley to be the depositer of the touch-dna is an example of flawed reasoning.

Touch-dna is not semen-dna, you cannot assume it was deposited by the same person who killed JonBenet.

IDI should give up on the touch-dna, otherwise they will be shot down everytime.

.

 

[UKGuy]

PR lint is just weaker than blood swab DNA, doncha think? Besides, your oft-touted fiber turns out to be ill-sourced. There's no expert fiber testimony and you've never seen this fiber evidence. Its not reported in the news, and its a myth used in a despicable attempt by investigators to make PR believe they had 'smoking gun' evidence she had killed her daughter. What you state as fact is really just a remnant of a lie.

Holdontoyourhat,

The news media , what has the news media to do with evidence do they magic it up?

That Patsy Ramsey's fibers were discovered in numerous locations at the crime-scene is well established. No expert testimony is required since the evidence has not been tested in court, this does not invalidate or deny the quality of the evidence.

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

14 you -- are you aware, I should say, that
15 your paint kit was found very close to the
16 wine cellar door?
17 A. I have heard that.
18 Q. Did you recall at any time that
19 you were shown photographs in that regard?
20 A. No.
21 Q. We have found, and I want you to
22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation
23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint
24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in
25 the photograph we showed you.

2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

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.

Please do not make stuff up. The evidence exists, just because your favorite news media has not reported on it does not mean it does not exist.

Once again IDI is found wanting, it seems to be based on an absence of evidence, and touch-dna, sometimes masquerading as DNA, all very very weak indeed!

.

 

[UKGuy]

Getting RDI to acknowledge this is like getting a root canal. You're a step ahead of the others, I'll tell you that.

The relative probability is vastly different however. That is, to get someone to shed someone else's skin cells but not their own. Twice.:banghead:

Holdontoyourhat,

You are talking nonsense as usual. There is no such thing as relative probability, since you cannot compute the probability in the first place.

And if it were correct to talk about relative probability, then you should be able to tell us the probabilty of the intruder depositing touch-dna only on the longjohns and size-12's and nowhere else?

e.g. writing-pad, sharpie-pen, duct-tape, cord, flashlight, blanket, JonBenet's person etc etc.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

Holdontoyourhat,

You are talking nonsense as usual. There is no such thing as relative probability, since you cannot compute the probability in the first place.

And if it were correct to talk about relative probability, then you should be able to tell us the probabilty of the intruder depositing touch-dna only on the longjohns and size-12's and nowhere else?

e.g. writing-pad, sharpie-pen, duct-tape, cord, flashlight, blanket, JonBenet's person etc etc.

.

The answer is simple UkGuy

The only thing he needed to take off the gloves for was the sexual assault.

You are the last person to accuse someone else of talking nonsense.

You are becoming a nuisance.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Please do not make stuff up. The evidence exists, just because your favorite news media has not reported on it does not mean it does not exist..

It doesn't exist.

The interrogator used the terms "I believe.." and "it appears". Obviously the interrogator isn't a fiber expert else he'd have said "consistent with" because fibers aren't DNA and cant be sourced. It would be better for RDI to have one expert that was able to characterize the fiber evidence, especially if RDI believes that its somehow smoking gun evidence. As it is, there's no news report, lab, or expert testimony or statement to corroborate the interviewer's claim.

Again, the interrogators lied to PR to make her believe they had smoking gun evidence in the paint tote. There were NO jacket fibers in the paint tote. You can't prove otherwise. Not everything interrogators say is the truth. In fact, lies are common. Did you need some evidence that interrogators sometimes lie? In the real world?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

You are talking nonsense as usual. There is no such thing as relative probability, since you cannot compute the probability in the first place.

And if it were correct to talk about relative probability, then you should be able to tell us the probabilty of the intruder depositing touch-dna only on the longjohns and size-12's and nowhere else?

e.g. writing-pad, sharpie-pen, duct-tape, cord, flashlight, blanket, JonBenet's person etc etc.

.

DA says 'likely' criminal DNA. Your announcement that there's no such thing as relative probability is just your claim. Since you're neither a statistician nor a DNA expert, maybe yours is just another high handed claim?

 

[UKGuy]

DA says 'likely' criminal DNA. Your announcement that there's no such thing as relative probability is just your claim. Since you're neither a statistician nor a DNA expert, maybe yours is just another high handed claim?

Holdontoyourhat,

It does not matter what I am or not. Its you that is making the claim for an IDI based on touch-dna. You have produced no figures to back up your claims regarding the touch-dna, you have not stated any research related to your touch-dna upon which you base your claims.

Your claim about relative probability is nonsense since you offer no figures to compare it against. So what is it relative to?

An IDI based on touch-dna is very very weak. e.g. you need to revise your theory.

.

 

[UKGuy]

DA says 'likely' criminal DNA. Your announcement that there's no such thing as relative probability is just your claim. Since you're neither a statistician nor a DNA expert, maybe yours is just another high handed claim?

Holdontoyourhat,

DA says 'likely' criminal DNA.

That is misleading and you know it. The DNA in question is touch-dna and it may have originated from anywhere e.g.

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)

From the person who wrapped the gifts at FAO Schwartz , and that person's touch-dna transfers onto JonBenet's clothing, it can still be an intruder that killed JonBenet, but it may not be the intruders touch-dna that was deposited upon JonBenet's clothing.

What I have outlined is just as likely as what the DA says, except my touch-dna is not criminal.

That is the DA cannot know how likely criminal the touch-dna is at all. But like you he assumes an IDI.

As you know an IDI based on touch-dna is very very weak indeed.

 

[UKGuy]

It doesn't exist.

The interrogator used the terms "I believe.." and "it appears". Obviously the interrogator isn't a fiber expert else he'd have said "consistent with" because fibers aren't DNA and cant be sourced. It would be better for RDI to have one expert that was able to characterize the fiber evidence, especially if RDI believes that its somehow smoking gun evidence. As it is, there's no news report, lab, or expert testimony or statement to corroborate the interviewer's claim.

Again, the interrogators lied to PR to make her believe they had smoking gun evidence in the paint tote. There were NO jacket fibers in the paint tote. You can't prove otherwise. Not everything interrogators say is the truth. In fact, lies are common. Did you need some evidence that interrogators sometimes lie? In the real world?

Holdontoyourhat,

You do not know if it does not exist! Why do you make claims, just like your IDI touch-dna, when you in fact have absolutely no knowledge regarding the status of the fibers.

Again you are talking nonsense, just because you have not tested the evidence does not allow you to assert it does not exist. It might exist but like the touch-dna have originated from another source, but from which the fibers are a match.

Again, the interrogators lied to PR to make her believe they had smoking gun evidence

You do not know this. Since the evidence has never been led or tested in court.

Again you are making stuff up!

.

 

[UKGuy]

The answer is simple UkGuy

The only thing he needed to take off the gloves for was the sexual assault.

You are the last person to accuse someone else of talking nonsense.

You are becoming a nuisance.

MurriFlower,

The only thing he needed to take off the gloves for was the sexual assault.

So why is there no touch-dna from JonBenet's genital area on record?

You are becoming a nuisance.

Excellent maybe you will recognize that there is zero forensic evidence to support an IDI theory.

The answer is simple UkGuy

I know! JonBenet was being molested and her crime-scene was staged to cover this fact up, this is why there was no intruder and to date no match on the touch-dna.

Thats how simple it is.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

MurriFlower,


So why is there no touch-dna from JonBenet's genital area on record?

Here is your assumption: the underwear DNA is from the underwear. The forensic workers took a swab from a fresh blood stain on the inside crotch area of JBR's underwear, and within the solution they found DNA from an unknown male. RDI ASSUMES that the DNA is secondary worker underwear handler DNA, and disregards the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the DNA was discovered. As if there was no distinction between the blood spot and any other location on the underwear.

There's no difference between my claim that tote fibers don't exist, and your claim that the DNA was ever part of the underwear and the blood just so happened to land on it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Excellent maybe you will recognize that there is zero forensic evidence to support an IDI theory.

The handwriting and DNA are forensic evidence and they aren't owned by anyone who lives there. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it so.

 

[BBB167893]

That is the best I can do without getting really angry about some of the guff you guys sprout.

Unfortunately, it probably is your best. As for getting angry about "guff," I'm tempted to paraphrase H.L. Mencken and say that you're not angry because it's not true, but because it may well be true. But I won't do that.

 

[BBB167893]

Should I now copy and paste cases solved by DNA?

I would suggest you do exactly that, HOTYH. If anything, it would further illustrate the problems in this one.

 

[BBB167893]

PR lint is just weaker than blood swab DNA, doncha think?

I certainly would be, IF not for the context.