Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[BBB167893]

The R's fit into the killer mold because of their actions, inactions, and lies. JMO.

I second that emotion!

 

[BBB167893]

There is no evidence that they did anything to her. Nothing.

Oh, NO?? How much time have you got, Scarlett?

But there is DNA of another person that points to someone there other than a family member. Ignoring that is just incredulous.

In any other case it would be key to solving it.

So you keep telling us. And that is what a lot of people think.

 

[BBB167893]

Lick fingers to guide thread? So now when when someone dies and we find DNA we should search for thread lickers?

Unfortunately, Scarlett, that may be the sad reality of these new super-sensitive DNA detection methods. That's not just my opinion, either. That's what an FBI criminologist told Bill O'Reilly back in 2006.

Frankly, the more sensitive these things get, the more sense the people in charge will have to have. Because right now, I'm picturing the result of a combination of these new methods and a fleet of prosecutors, cops and DNA technicians brought up on shows like CSI. And I can sum it up in one phrase:

God help us all.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm in a small minority of people here who hold an alternate view of the evidence. I believe most people here dismiss the DNA evidence because they are convinced of Ramsey guilt and cannot reconcile foreign DNA with that.

I don't think the two are necessarily related, Anyhoo.

Indeed, I'll go further than that. Just because the DNA is most likely irrelevant doesn't mean there was no intruder. I've said in the past that if the people at the top didn't put so much focus on the DNA, their chances of finding an intruder would be much greater.

 

[UKGuy]

And I'm willing to bet you've never seen a worker in Taiwan fold or handle a garment. I would guess the folding and packaging could also be done by automated machine after it has been inspected by a person.
jmo

azwriter,
Assuming the underwear was the result of an automated factory line. Sampling for product quality usually takes the form of randomly opening sealed boxes from the shipping warehouse and visually inspecting them for quality standards.


.

 

[Mysteeri]

Welcome back, Mysteeri! The Force is strong within you. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Dark Side of the Force.

Oh, my late thanks to you, SD. I`ve got some catching up to do now on this forum.

I am not worthy to become your apprentice, though.

Edit. A comment on touch DNA. Skin cells would be on gloves as well, so gloves could have been used when handling the underwear.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There's not just the DNA of one other person though is there? Surely, you're not suggesting 5 people were in the basement that night? And yet... That's seems to be exactly what you're suggesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

No, I am not but we have matching DNA from two different places on two different items. That is not casual dna.. That is someone was there that night and we only need to name them. And it was not an R.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Number one, even if I agreed with you that the indictment was a little weak--and I would remind you that something like 95% of those who reach the indictment stage are guilty--the way it's worded suggests to me that the Grand Jury couldn't decide which one actually killed her and which one was the accomplice. Sound familiar, Roy?

Number two, I guess you're a "believe it when I see it" type of guy. I get that. That's sort of how I operate, too. I'll know more when the layout manager talks to me.

Where did you get that Stat?? cite it please. Just because someone is indicted does not make the guilty of ANYTHING. and in this case they were not indicted for murder.

So funny, The Indictment is not about either one killing them. Even if they could not have decided and THOUGHT that either one killed them all they had to do is indict them both for murder. They are not the guilt finders. Just the is it possible finders.. And they could not even find that.

This case is over. The R's are not guilty. None of them. Nothing points to their guilt. OMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

azwriter,
Assuming the underwear was the result of an automated factory line. Sampling for product quality usually takes the form of randomly opening sealed boxes from the shipping warehouse and visually inspecting them for quality standards.


.

This is so amazing to me.. So we should go back to every murder where the DNA was key and just throw it out and attribute it to a factory worker??

It would be a ridiculous argument if it was just in one place, but the same DNA in two places? No.. This was something that was left that night.

And please remember this is a thread for theories that do not argue RDI. This is an ODI thread.

 

[BBB167893]

Where did you get that Stat?? cite it please. Just because someone is indicted does not make the guilty of ANYTHING.

You can thank Tom Wolfe for that.

and in this case they were not indicted for murder.

So funny, The Indictment is not about either one killing them. Even if they could not have decided and THOUGHT that either one killed them all they had to do is indict them both for murder. They are not the guilt finders. Just the is it possible finders. And they could not even find that.

Well, Scarlett, I admit it's been a few years since my law class days, but I seem to remember that there's a difference under the law between killing and murdering. Murder needs intent; the intent to kill. People get killed all the time, and it's not considered murder. It's "manslaughter," or "negligent homicide" or what-have-you.

This case is over.

I've been saying that since June 24th, 2006.

The R's are not guilty. None of them. Nothing points to their guilt. OMO

Like I said, how much time do you have?

 

[Tawny]

There's a difference between key DNA (meaning, there was enough DNA for a full sample, at the very least) and a negligent amount of DNA that doesn't even make up a full profile. It was partial DNA. How do you match PARTIAL DNA with anyone? You can't, because it's incomplete. JMO

 

[BBB167893]

This is so amazing to me. So we should go back to every murder where the DNA was key and just throw it out and attribute it to a factory worker??

Oh, for God's sake, Scarlett. That's precisely the point. In murders where DNA IS key, it's because it's something undeniable. Here's an example: in the OJ Simpson case, DNA was key because blood was found matching OJ at the crime scene, which he said he wasn't at. He had a cut on his hand where it most likely came from.

If the DNA in THIS case were semen or, to a lesser extent blood, you wouldn't get ANY argument from me. (I can't speak for other people.) But it wasn't. Nobody can tell exactly WHAT it is. And it was in such bad shape that it took seven years for technology to evolve to where they could get 10 markers, and ANOTHER five after that to get Touch DNA.

NO ONE (that I can see) is arguing what you suggest, Scarlett.

It would be a ridiculous argument if it was just in one place, but the same DNA in two places? No. This was something that was left that night.

Tell that to Henry Lee. He found DNA in panties fresh from the factories where they were made.

And please remember this is a thread for theories that do not argue RDI. This is an IDI thread.

Fine. I give up.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Where did you get that Stat?? cite it please. Just because someone is indicted does not make the guilty of ANYTHING. and in this case they were not indicted for murder.

So funny, The Indictment is not about either one killing them. Even if they could not have decided and THOUGHT that either one killed them all they had to do is indict them both for murder. They are not the guilt finders. Just the is it possible finders.. And they could not even find that.

This case is over. The R's are not guilty. None of them. Nothing points to their guilt. OMO

How can you say the case is over if you think an IDI? Wouldn't that mean that as soon as there's a DNA match, the case is solved?

 

[BBB167893]

There's a difference between key DNA (meaning, there was enough DNA for a full sample, at the very least) and a negligent amount of DNA that doesn't even make up a full profile. It was partial DNA. How do you match PARTIAL DNA with anyone? You can't, because it's incomplete. JMO

That's what I was TRYING to say!

 

[Tadpole12]

There's a difference between key DNA (meaning, there was enough DNA for a full sample, at the very least) and a negligent amount of DNA that doesn't even make up a full profile. It was partial DNA. How do you match PARTIAL DNA with anyone? You can't, because it's incomplete. JMO

Heyya Tawny,

Re: adventitious matches:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nEtuSBuVsyQJ:www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/training/3_Expanding%2520core%2520loci_CFGSS.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

" The only published account of a false match from a DNA
database came in 1999 when the UK database then
consisting of 660,000 profiles with only 6 STR loci (SGM
assay) lead to a "hit" between two individuals whose six-locus
random match probability was 1 in 37 million."

(R. Willing, USA
Today, Feb 8, 2000; “Mismatch calls DNA test into question&#8221.

 

[catswhiskers]

This is so amazing to me.. So we should go back to every murder where the DNA was key and just throw it out and attribute it to a factory worker??

It would be a ridiculous argument if it was just in one place, but the same DNA in two places? No.. This was something that was left that night.

And please remember this is a thread for theories that do not argue RDI. This is an ODI thread.

Right ... every time I pop in I have to check the thread title in case I have accidentally clicked on the wrong one.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's what I was TRYING to say!

IT is not incomplete. IT is a match to the DNA in the panties.

 

[Tawny]

IT is not incomplete. IT is a match to the DNA in the panties.

Which is also incomplete. Because it was transferred.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Oh, for God's sake, Scarlett. That's precisely the point. In murders where DNA IS key, it's because it's something undeniable. Here's an example: in the OJ Simpson case, DNA was key because blood was found matching OJ at the crime scene, which he said he wasn't at. He had a cut on his hand where it most likely came from.

If the DNA in THIS case were semen or, to a lesser extent blood, you wouldn't get ANY argument from me. (I can't speak for other people.) But it wasn't. Nobody can tell exactly WHAT it is. And it was in such bad shape that it took seven years for technology to evolve to where they could get 10 markers, and ANOTHER five after that to get Touch DNA.

NO ONE (that I can see) is arguing what you suggest, Scarlett.



Tell that to Henry Lee. He found DNA in panties fresh from the factories where they were made.



Fine. I give up.

It does not matter what it was. It matters that it was there, and DNA from the panties matched the TDNA in another article of clothing. That is that.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Which is also incomplete. Because it was transferred.

Transferred from where? I don't believe for a moment that it was transferred from the panties. BEcause it is DNA That does not belong to JBR. If it did, I would say yes.. But a unique person left it in her underwear and on her pajamas. That is deposited DNA not transferred DNA.

I just am amazed that there is so much argument about DNA in this case. We have cases all over where a small amount of DNA is used to convict and everyone uses that DNA as the smoking gun. In this case, we have DNA in two places that matches and it is treated like sawdust.

For me, In this case that DNA screams intruder. It screams someone else was there, touched her and left their material and that is our answer. In any other case the focus would be on the person who left that DNA. OMO