Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[DeeDee249]

My statement does not suppose that it was the unknown males blood, just that there was unknown male dna recovered from that blood. To make your statement accurate, that same unknown male would have had to package JBR used, and previously washed pajamas, as the same unknown male dna was recovered from those. Of course, this is an impossibility.

Further, you suppose that the basement was "filthy, moldy room." As much money as these people had, I'd be surprised to find ANYTHING in their house that was "filthy or moldy".

Last, it is not unusual for parents to hide presents in odd locations before Christmas. Quite lucky for the killer, but not out of the realm of possibility IMO.

I do not believe the killer was a stranger to the family, but I am not convinced in the least that the killer was Patsy, or that she has anything to do with the killing.

It isn't MY description of the room, but the actual reported condition of the room. Take a look at the crime scene photos for yourself. The mold on the floor if the room where JB was found is easily seen, and as a matter of FACT, the mold was deep enough for police to observe a Hi-Tec shoeprint made there.
Many people have rooms like this in older basements, it has nothing to do with the Rs money or status. Other parts of their basement were carpeted and used for recreation. But many basements with concrete floors have that same mold problem. Mine did before we sealed the floor.
Patsy had much to do with this crime, whether the killing (accidental I am sure) or coverup. I am without doubt that she wrote the note. That "rogue" male DNA is found in places that cannot rule out having been left before this killing. It is found NO where else in the house, making it unlikely any intruder was the donor. If it was found on doorknobs, window sills, the suitcase handle, the pineapple bowl/spoon, etc. then I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

From a deposition by Fleet White:
"a dark, dirty area" with mold growing on the floor.
(F. White 228.)

Price of tea in China?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is parental fibers on the three items that are EXCLUSIVE to the crime- the tape, garrote knot and redressed panties.

Parental fibers in their own house, on their own daughter, in any quantity (now RDI somehow magically knows there are more than one or two fibers), are NOT REMARKABLE.

RDI lacks any solid evidence that links either PR or JR to the murder, and resorts to PR and JR's own fibers in their own house. What a joke. Oh wait did we find JR's fingerprints on his own front door too? Wow thats it!

It is really ridiculous how some RDI can include parental fiber evidence and discard DNA evidence at will.

RDI: Hmm, well have some of this evidence and some of that evidence but not all evidence.

IDI: We'll take all evidence.

 

[DeeDee249]

Parental fibers in their own house, on their own daughter, in any quantity (now RDI somehow magically knows there are more than one or two fibers), are NOT REMARKABLE.

RDI lacks any solid evidence that links either PR or JR to the murder, and resorts to PR and JR's own fibers in their own house. What a joke. Oh wait did we find JR's fingerprints on his own front door too? Wow thats it!

It is really ridiculous how some RDI can include parental fiber evidence and discard DNA evidence at will.

RDI: Hmm, well have some of this evidence and some of that evidence but not all evidence.

IDI: We'll take all evidence.

You were the one insisting that the tape and cord didn't come from the house. Patsy admitted to LE that she had never worn that sweater in the basement or handling the paint tote. Patsy's fibers found in THREE places directly associated with the crime and all located in the basement (paint tote, garrote knot, tape) place her in the basement wearing that sweater and having physical contact with a dead or dying JB. Parental fibers found in these locations were left at the time of the crime.
JR's fibers found inside the crotch of a NEW pair of panties that never left the basement also place HIM there at the time the panties were put on a dead or dying JB.

 

[cynic]

Ah, but wasn't the "unknown male's" DNA in blood in JBR's panties? So, the "unknown male" must have done more than shake hands with Patsy.

IMO, it is only a matter of time before the "unknown male" does something else bad, gets caught, they get his DNA into the data base, and it turns up a match in this case.

The DNA in this case allows for “innocent” explanations because skin cells are highly transferable and, therefore, issues such as contamination, secondary and tertiary transfer as well as other more technical matters come into play.

"As the sensitivity of multiplex STR PCR DNA profiling sensitivity increases, with less and less DNA required for the development of a DNA profile, the “Forensic Context” of DNA recovered at scenes of crime must be closely scrutinized. A DNA profile found at a crime scene, which is indistinguishable from a suspect, often shows only association. Time and context of the contact often must be demonstrated through further investigation and other forensic evidence.
Therefore, only after a thorough examination of the known facts surrounding a case, and a multidisciplinary forensic investigation, should conclusions be drawn."
-William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California

Contamination:

“But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Doubt was also cast on a number of convictions in Queensland when a forensic scientist who had previously worked for a state forensic laboratory publicly expressed concerns about the reliability of the lab’s work. He told The Australian newspaper that it was not uncommon for the lab to mix up DNA samples from different cases. For example, he said that analysts’ own DNA, from blood samples used as analytical controls, often was mixed up with (or found its way into) casework samples, creating false matches: “Quite often my colleague would walk down the aisle and say, ‘I’ve just committed another rape on the Gold Coast.’”
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf

How was the evidence handled in the JBR case?

"When Meyer (the coroner) clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects." - Steve Thomas

DNA in the blood spot alleged to be from an intruder:

Mary Lacy:
It is possible that the unidentified male DNA might have been left there through secondary contact, or even when the underwear was manufactured.
"The DNA could be an artifact,"
"It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."

There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation” (2002)
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear doesn't necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney`s Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to the conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061222#axzz0iI8WqIap

Secondary Transfer:

Secondary transfer of DNA is a proven fact. It has been observed in experiments and in the field.

Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

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. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

Transfer of DNA is seen with variable degrees of efficiency in each of the two types of transfer experiments conducted. In most cases the transferred DNA was a lower concentration than the DNA of the individual to whom it was transferred, however, this was not observed in all instances.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf

Example of secondary transfer:

The case of Janelle Patton:

McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.

There are many who remain unconvinced by the DNA evidence in the JBR case.

Wendy Murphy:
“I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.”

Henry Lee:
Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene.“Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said.“That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”

Mark Fuhrman:
"I don't think anybody is an idiot for believing in the intruder theory. But I do think those who do probably don't work in law enforcement"

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You were the one insisting that the tape and cord didn't come from the house. Patsy admitted to LE that she had never worn that sweater in the basement or handling the paint tote. Patsy's fibers found in THREE places directly associated with the crime and all located in the basement (paint tote, garrote knot, tape) place her in the basement wearing that sweater and having physical contact with a dead or dying JB. Parental fibers found in these locations were left at the time of the crime.
JR's fibers found inside the crotch of a NEW pair of panties that never left the basement also place HIM there at the time the panties were put on a dead or dying JB.

This assumes primary transfer, and primary transfer is something you obviously don't know happened. The DNA is way better at placing someone in the basement because touch DNA is typically primary transfer, AND the underwear DNA was MIXED with blood from the attack.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"As the sensitivity of multiplex STR PCR DNA profiling sensitivity increases, with less and less DNA required for the development of a DNA profile, the “Forensic Context” of DNA recovered at scenes of crime must be closely scrutinized. A DNA profile found at a crime scene, which is indistinguishable from a suspect, often shows only association. Time and context of the contact often must be demonstrated through further investigation and other forensic evidence.
Therefore, only after a thorough examination of the known facts surrounding a case, and a multidisciplinary forensic investigation, should conclusions be drawn."
-William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California

Do we have time and context of contact for RDI's oft-touted fibers? No.

Do we have time and context of contact for DNA? Yes. Mixed with blood sets the time and context, and matching touch DNA on each side of the waistband of the longjohns corroborates the time and the context. What more do you need?

Can you set the time and context, with corroboration, using fiber evidence? No.

Does RDI take into consideration ALL the known facts? No. The unsourced cord, unsourced tape, unsourced handwriting, unsource object that struck JBR's head, unsourced fibers, unsourced pineapple, unsourced male DNA, and motive are all either assigned an RDI value (using 3rd party opinion instead of 1st hand information), or deemed irrelevant.

Does RDI make conclusions anyway? Yes. Complete conclusions including whodunit.

Does IDI take into consideration ALL the known facts? Yes. It is recognized that there are many unsourced and missing items. Nothing is deemed irrelevant. There is a scenario that accounts for all the known (factual) evidence. Thats what really happened.

 

[madeleine]

Does IDI take into consideration ALL the known facts? Yes.

The unsourced cord, unsourced tape, unsourced handwriting, unsource object that struck JBR's head, unsourced fibers, unsourced pineapple, unsourced male DNA,

Right...................

If you want to call these items unsourced,fine,doesn't mean this is fact though.But I like the unsourced male DNA which is actually the biggest IDI problem but you don't see it yet.

 

[madeleine]

Re the "unsourced" pineapple.

Are you saying that the SFF knew Jb likes pineapple?
If so it's not that foreign anymore.
Do you want me to believe that he/they sat down with JB at the kitchen table (with the lights off )calmly waiting for a parent to get up?Oh wait,this can't be possible,didn't they stun gun her up in her bedroom?
You want me to believe that "unsourced" pineapple in JB's intestine and pineapple in the Ramseys bowl on the Ramseys kitchen is just another "coincidence"?
You want me to believe that the SFF brought pineapple but they didn't come prepared with a ransom note?
I have more but it's getting hilarious and we're talking about murder here.

 

[madeleine]

Woah now this is GOOD!Brilliant idea Lou!

@ min 06:36 re DNA/we clone the owner and see who did it!

http://noolmusic.com/utube/raw_video_lou_smit_talks_about_ramsey_case_in_a_ra.php

I think I need some fresh air...................


and btw, @min 07:25 what injuries on JB's shoulder is he talking about?

 

[DeeDee249]

Woah now this is GOOD!Brilliant idea Lou!

@ min 06:36 re DNA/we clone the owner and see who did it!

http://noolmusic.com/utube/raw_video_lou_smit_talks_about_ramsey_case_in_a_ra.php

I think I need some fresh air...................


and btw, @min 07:25 what injuries on JB's shoulder is he talking about?

That IS a good idea.
There is a fairly large bruise on JB's shoulder that was noted in the autopsy and can be seen on some websites that post autopsy photos. It is not seen on ACR photos. I'll try to find it.

 

[madeleine]

That IS a good idea.
There is a fairly large bruise on JB's shoulder that was noted in the autopsy and can be seen on some websites that post autopsy photos. It is not seen on ACR photos. I'll try to find it.

Ty.

Btw,I've never seen this pic before
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/04302001today-037.jpg

Is that a bruise on her chin?(right side)
And is that( lower/middle)ANOTHER abrasion?How many were there anyway?TIA

 

[madeleine]

Did they move the knot or something.

http://crimeshots.com/face1.jpg
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/04302001today-037.jpg

:waitasec:

In pic number one I can't see the abrasion that can be seen in pic number two.Am I missing something here?


And re BOTH pictures.....I don't see the correspondent mark (if she was stun gunned there must be 2 marks on her right side of the face and 2 marks below her neck in the middle (second pic) )


I know she wasn't stun gunned,just asking those who think she was

 

[USARDOG]

From a deposition by Fleet White describing the room:
"a dark, dirty area" with mold growing on the floor.
(F. White 228.)

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I am obviously not up on the details of this case, but stubbornly cling to the hope that Patsy was not involved.

When small I lived up north and we had a basement, there was no mold, though the humidity did remain quite high year around.

The blood found in JBR's panties and no doubt other evidence points to penetration. I do not see this as something Patsy would do. But do not know which came first, the penetration to cover or direct guilt, or an act of sexual deviance and murder followed by a note to make it look like an attempted kidnapping.

I always found the ransom note and odd affair, it looks to me an attempt to cover, but by whom I am left without a clue. Perhaps as DNA techniques progress, more might be recovered from the note, and prove enlightening.

I do not find it terribly odd that at some point PR would not want to answer some questions, as it was obvious that some authorities were looking to tie this on her or her husband.

 

[BBB167893]

This is a 'generalization'. When we actually discuss the facts of the case, it turns out that the only quantifiable progress relates to the DNA. This is inarguable, and is in opposition to your statement.

It's in opposition, all right, but it's FAR from inarguable! VERY far!

IOW you're wrong and I don't mind telling you.

I'm sure you don't, even if it isn't true. Like I said, I've got a long list and a lot of time.

Who cares if they were prosecutors, that wasn't the question.

I care. I realize I'm no legal expert, but I think it would help one's career as a prosecutor if they were to understand how evidence works.

Are they fiber experts, and if so why do they need PR to tell them if it was primary or secondary transfer?

I should think the answer to that would be obvious: because she's the only person who can account for her own fibers. If she can, it helps eliminate her as a suspect. If she can't...well, that's equally obvious.

Of course they can!

'Fraid not, my friend. Don't take my word for it. Here you go:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

I figure thats just what they did, by some of the other $%$##$ stupid questions these 'experts' asked. Case in point:

Q. Would you wear that dress shirt to change the oil in your car?

A. Duh, yeah?

You've completely lost me, HOTYH. Not only is your analogy a poor one (and that's being polite), it omits a crucial factor, that being the paint box directly relates to the crime. More specifically, the garrote handle most likely came out of the paint box and that her fibers shouldn't be there because she says she never went anywhere near it when she had those clothes on.

This demonstrates perfectly what I was referring to. Why would Levin ask fiber related questions of people who have no knowledge of fiber evidence.

Again, the answer should be obvious: because they were there that night, and those questions HAVE to be asked, guilty or not.

To make them look stupid? To get them to say stuff?

PR didn't need any help to "say stuff." That's one big reason why I jumped ship from IDI to RDI. Moreover, nobody held a gun to her head to say anything. This is America; she could have kept her mouth shut. You seem to be confusing the right to remain silent with a right to lie.

Look, if the Rs, now JR, want to live the rest of their lives in obscurity saying nothing one way or another, not only is that their right, but I'll be the first one to say they have that right. But if they lie, we should call them on it, because innocent or not, it does not help them or this case.

A real fiber expert would've answered no to that question.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

No. 1 is understandable. After all, thats what they were after.

I certainly have no evidence that they were "after" that. Either way, it makes no difference, and you know it. It doesn't matter if they WANTED her to slip up; she DID slip up, and in a BIG way. If I were in your shoes (and don't forget that I used to be), that's the part I'd focus on, because it's a big @#$% problem! Even LS admits that.

I'd like you to explain No. 2 here, if you dont' mind. That is, how does IDI make PR out to be stupid?

I was hoping you'd ask that. And to start with, that was a bit of an unfair generalization. I apologize for that. To be specific some of the RST with the loudest mouths have insisted that the Rs were too ignorant of how criminals act to have done this crime and too ignorant to tell anything but the truth.

 

[BBB167893]

You were the one insisting that the tape and cord didn't come from the house. Patsy admitted to LE that she had never worn that sweater in the basement or handling the paint tote. Patsy's fibers found in THREE places directly associated with the crime and all located in the basement (paint tote, garrote knot, tape) place her in the basement wearing that sweater and having physical contact with a dead or dying JB. Parental fibers found in these locations were left at the time of the crime.
JR's fibers found inside the crotch of a NEW pair of panties that never left the basement also place HIM there at the time the panties were put on a dead or dying JB.

I don't think it's making a dent, DeeDee. But hey, I love ya.

 

[BBB167893]

This assumes primary transfer, and primary transfer is something you obviously don't know happened.

We sure as he** don't know it DIDN'T! And since the Rs only explanation digs them deeper, the outlook isn't good.

 

[BBB167893]

Do we have time and context of contact for RDI's oft-touted fibers? No.

Do we have time and context of contact for DNA? Yes.

I'me afraid you've got that just the other way around! JB was killed sometime on Christmas night and had fibers from clothes we KNOW her parents wore that night in places they should not have been. They should not have been on the duct tape or tied into (NOT ON, INTO) the cord knots, because they claim the tape and cord did not come from their house.

What more do YOU need? A busload of nuns as eyewitnesses?

 

[BBB167893]

Right...................

If you want to call these items unsourced,fine,doesn't mean this is fact though.But I like the unsourced male DNA which is actually the biggest IDI problem but you don't see it yet.

:woohoo:

 

[BBB167893]

I am obviously not up on the details of this case, but stubbornly cling to the hope that Patsy was not involved.

I think you will find that to be a widely shared hope.

The blood found in JBR's panties and no doubt other evidence points to penetration. I do not see this as something Patsy would do.

For what it's worth, I don't think she did.

I do not find it terribly odd that at some point PR would not want to answer some questions, as it was obvious that some authorities were looking to tie this on her or her husband.

It's not the refusals that are the problem. It's the inconsistencies.

But you've earned my respect in one way: at least you don't allege the big "law enforcement conspiracy" that the Rs and some of their supporters do.