Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM.
I'm curious, why is that the only thing anyone needs to know?

I have a question for you. When Scarlett asked a simple question on the RDI thread she was run off and told not to post there. Here you are asking a question on this thread. Do you think it was fair for Scarlett to be treated that way?

 

[madeleine]

IIRC according to JK there was unknown touch DNA on the garrote as well.
If IDI think that the garrote was a strangling device and they always claim strangulation came first...isn't the touch DNA on the garrote as important as the one found in the panties?Would make sense,no?
But the two don't match.
So....are we dealing with 2 intruders?

 

[2 percent]

I found this on the FBI's web site about CODIS and the National DNA Index System or NDIS.


The minimum number of markers needed for forensic DNA profiles to be submitted to NDIS is 10.

So now I need to find out exactly how many markers the DNA sample in question actually has in it.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

BBM
Wait. Regardless, there were only 9 markers with a weak 10th. How the 10th was strengthened has never been explained. But it should be.

The way I understand it 13 is required for CODIS and 10 is acceptable, but not optimal, for NDIS. NDIS is a part of CODIS, so the overall standard for the DNA profile was not met. That's the part that is most important to me and the 9 turning to 10 is suspicious.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM
Wait. Regardless, there were only 9 markers with a weak 10th. How the 10th was strengthened has never been explained. But it should be.

The way I understand it 13 is required for CODIS and 10 is acceptable, but not optimal, for NDIS. NDIS is a part of CODIS, so the overall standard for the DNA profile was not met. That's the part that is most important to me and the 9 turning to 10 is suspicious.

If you can provide something to back up you claims I'll consider it. Until then I think that I'll disregard it. For all I know there were 11 or 12 or 13 markers developed.

 

[2 percent]

I have a question for you. When Scarlett asked a simple question on the RDI thread she was run off and told not to post there. Here you are asking a question on this thread. Do you think it was fair for Scarlett to be treated that way?

My question has nothing to do with RDI or IDI. I merely wanted to know why you set that standard for what "anyone" should know concerning the DNA.

I won't comment on anything but my own actions.
Fact is, we've all been run off.
Not my call...not my choice.

 

[Roy23]

BBM
Wait. Regardless, there were only 9 markers with a weak 10th. How the 10th was strengthened has never been explained. But it should be.

The way I understand it 13 is required for CODIS and 10 is acceptable, but not optimal, for NDIS. NDIS is a part of CODIS, so the overall standard for the DNA profile was not met. That's the part that is most important to me and the 9 turning to 10 is suspicious.

Suspicious? I think that is the wrong word. DNA changes every year and the techniques used to find it as well. Mary Lacey didn't put it in the computer. Or do the DNA testing for that matter.

 

[Roy23]

BBM.
I'm curious, why is that the only thing anyone needs to know?

I just don't see why critiqing DNA that the FBI says is sufficient and complete enough for comparison does us any good. I mean they are the ones who wrote the guidelines and submitted it. It seems counterproductive unless you work in forensics, know all the facts, and disagree with their requirements.

Welcome by the way

 

[2 percent]

If you can provide something to back up you claims I'll consider it. Until then I think that I'll disregard it. For all I know there were 11 or 12 or 13 markers developed.

A poster on this site summed up Kolar's mention of the DNA in his book, Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10137"]DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Forums For Justice[/ame]


He talks about the 9 markers, the weak existence of the 10th and that it was worked on (presumably for about 10 years) to identify.

 

[Roy23]

IIRC according to JK there was unknown touch DNA on the garrote as well.
If IDI think that the garrote was a strangling device and they always claim strangulation came first...isn't the touch DNA on the garrote as important as the one found in the panties?Would make sense,no?
But the two don't match.
So....are we dealing with 2 intruders?

I don't put too much stock in everything JK says but I think that is possible. It would be nice to match just one of the samples even to an innocent person. And quite frankly I am gonna say what Mr. Superdave has said for a long time. This case needs boots on the ground for old fashioned police work.

 

[2 percent]

I don't put too much stock in everything JK says but I think that is possible. It would be nice to match just one of the samples even to an innocent person. And quite frankly I am gonna say what Mr. Superdave has said for a long time. This case needs boots on the ground for old fashioned police work.

DNA, fingerprints, etc are nice. But without good solid policework from the beginning, it can be worthless.

There's a scene in Profiler that has always stuck with me when I debate these cases. Two characters are talking about a fingerprint, one of them obsessing about it.

"How many times have you convicted someone on a fingerprint?"
"Never"
"We don't need it"

 

[Deleted member 39678]

My question has nothing to do with RDI or IDI. I merely wanted to know why you set that standard for what "anyone" should know concerning the DNA.

I won't comment on anything but my own actions.
Fact is, we've all been run off.
Not my call...not my choice.

If your question has nothing to do with IDI why did you post it on this thread? I'm not setting any standards. I only posted the FBI's standards.

I don't get your statement that "we've all been run off." I only saw one person told not to post on the RDI thread. If you don't want to answer my question that's fine with me.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

A poster on this site summed up Kolar's mention of the DNA in his book, Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Forums For Justice


He talks about the 9 markers, the weak existence of the 10th and that it was worked on (presumably for about 10 years) to identify.

What in the heck does a "weak existence" mean?

 

[BBB167893]

Here is my issue, Augmented means to change something..

When I google this it comes up as nothing called Augmented dna.

So if you could explain what you are saying with a reference that would be helpful. From what I see they got 6 profiles that are unknown.

Maybe I can help (without actually breaking the thread rules).

What BOESP is referring to is the way the 2003 CODIS sample mention by Roy was handled.

Because human DNA is so similar from one person to another, a DNA sample has to have a minimum of 10 identifiable markers before it can be entered into the CODIS system permanently, though 13 is generally considered a complete sample. The DNA that was submitted in 2003 from the underwear did not have 13 markers. It only had 9-1/2, and they had to augment it to get THAT many.

Now, when we say "augment," we mean that it was subjected to allele amplification. Thus, it can't be accepted into CODIS on a permanent basis, but has to be resubmitted every so often.

 

[BBB167893]

Well it is obviously at least 10. Why are we debating a DNA that is accepted by the Codis guildelines. Its real.

You know why we're debating it, Roy. Or at least, you SHOULD. I've told you enough times.

 

[Roy23]

You know why we're debating it, Roy. Or at least, you SHOULD. I've told you enough times.

No, I really don't. I don't need you to tell me anything. We got a sample in the FBI Codis national database is all I got to know. Now go on back to the RDI thread. I appreciate the mods doing these separate threads.

 

[BBB167893]

What in the heck does a "weak existence" mean?

That the 10th marker was not complete.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That the 10th marker was not complete.

Who say's it wasn't complete?

 

[Roy23]

Who say's it wasn't complete?

Please don't feed the birds. He's not supposed to be here. This is an IDI thread and the mods are gonna shut it down if RDI's troll and stir up controversy here.

 

[BBB167893]

No, I really don't. I don't need you to tell me anything. We got a sample in the FBI Codis national database is all I got to know. Now go on back to the RDI thread. I appreciate the mods doing these separate threads.

Roy, I didn't come here looking for a fight. I'm just trying to provide some help if it's needed. That's all.

 

[BBB167893]

Who say's it wasn't complete?

Please don't feed the birds. He's not supposed to be here. This is an IDI thread and the mods are gonna shut it down if RDI's troll and stir up controversy here.

Okay, fellas. You've made your point. I'm going. I'm going!