No intruder?

[Agatha_C]

I know just who they are Moooo!!!!!!!

 

[Ames]

Murri, what source with link please, said both sides of the long johns?

One source...CBS news website. I have to hear it from more than ONE source to believe it. I have read way too many articles that are incorrect....some totally different from even the autopy report.

 

[Agatha_C]

Ames, Thank you so much..

 

[Tadpole12]

What you are saying here is that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys". She was very afraid to test lots of other areas because that dna was not going to show up anywhere else and that would have ruined her exoneration of the Ramseys. Let's all hope the new DA has a lot more dedication to justice and will test all the pertinent areas.

Heyya Becks.

Yep, the design of the test was not sound. No mention of control samples.
Two samples, scraped material from both sides of the waistband, limits what could have been deduced. If only additional samples, the interior of the clothing, or on the cuffs of the legs of the longjohns had been taken.

 

[Ames]

Ames, Thank you so much..

You are quite welcome!!!

 

[SunnieRN]

Strawman proposals. Like the absurd DrBDI idea.

To whoever can take the most profoundly noble person who has probably saved the lives of several children, dedicating his life in this noble profession, and slander his good name without reason: Dishonor to you, your family, and your cow.

slan·der

   /ˈslæn

dər/ Show Spelled[slan-der] Show IPA
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

Hmmmm, sounds like another theory, of an MAAM. Also of the Russians.

My bold

What I said was not that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys" Those were your thoughts. I said Far as I know they were the only thing tested. I explained that because touch DNA is not able to be seen, they would only test areas where it could be reasonably assumed the person who removed her longjohns touched them. As it happened, there was unidentified male DNA found on both sides. Voila!!

Then MF, WHERE is Patsys touch DNA?? She admits to dressing JonBenet in the long johns. I notice you keep avoiding THAT question.

MF, curiosity has gotten the best of me. I will ask again. Are you from the US?

 

[Tadpole12]

Isn't MF's icon a roo with a brew?

 

[SunnieRN]

I thought it was a boxing Kangaroo? But her avator made me wonder. I haven't been on this forum for that long, so I got curious.

 

[MurriFlower]

SunnieRN;5886091


Then MF, WHERE is Patsys touch DNA?? She admits to dressing JonBenet in the long johns. I notice you keep avoiding THAT question.

Well, like I said, you will have to ask Bode about that.

MF, curiosity has gotten the best of me. I will ask again. Are you from the US?

Nope.

 

[MurriFlower]

I thought it was a boxing Kangaroo? But her avator made me wonder. I haven't been on this forum for that long, so I got curious.

I've just changed it recently.

Tadpole 12:Isn't MF's icon a roo with a brew?

Very observant Tad

 

[SunnieRN]

So, you're from the land down under MF? I've always wanted to visit there! Thank you for answering my question, kind of...lol.

And I did notice the avator change now.

SD, educate us please. What did Bode say? In reading their site, touch DNA does not seem all that reliable if the sample is mixed, per my understanding.

 

[MurriFlower]

So, you're from the land down under MF? I've always wanted to visit there! Thank you for answering my question, kind of...lol.

And I did notice the avator change now.

OT, sorry! Oprah has brought her whole (1 days) audience here. They are being sent on holidays all over the country. Should make for interesting TV.

 

[SunnieRN]

OT, sorry! Oprah has brought her whole (1 days) audience here. They are being sent on holidays all over the country. Should make for interesting TV.

Too bad I wasn't in her audience. Maybe we could have waved 'hello'.:Banane13: ?Not exactly waving, but...

 

[BBB167893]

SD, educate us please. What did Bode say?

NOTHING! They didn't tell me a THING! I asked exactly the questions we've been asking here and they didn't answer ONE of them. They gave me a CYA response about how they can't talk about cases being investigated. The ba*****s!

In reading their site, touch DNA does not seem all that reliable if the sample is mixed, per my understanding.

That's true of MOST DNA testing methods. But yes, that's what I got from it as well. Henry Lee himself said that about half the DNA found at crime scenes cannot be matched to anyone, and that's perfectly normal. And that's with REGULAR testing methods. It's only going to get worse as detection methods get more sensitive. I'm not a forensic expert by any means, but I am a thinker. And it seems to me if they have unidentified DNA that consistenly dead-ends on them, it should be discounted.

See, that's what I keep TELLING IDI, but they don't hear it. It doesn't take a genius to see why, either: it's all they've GOT. Well, that's fine. If you won't believe me, take it up with Henry.

 

[UKGuy]

NOTHING! They didn't tell me a THING! I asked exactly the questions we've been asking here and they didn't answer ONE of them. They gave me a CYA response about how they can't talk about cases being investigated. The ba*****s!



That's true of MOST DNA testing methods. But yes, that's what I got from it as well. Henry Lee himself said that about half the DNA found at crime scenes cannot be matched to anyone, and that's perfectly normal. And that's with REGULAR testing methods. It's only going to get worse as detection methods get more sensitive. I'm not a forensic expert by any means, but I am a thinker. And it seems to me if they have unidentified DNA that consistenly dead-ends on them, it should be discounted.

See, that's what I keep TELLING IDI, but they don't hear it. It doesn't take a genius to see why, either: it's all they've GOT. Well, that's fine. If you won't believe me, take it up with Henry.

SuperDave,

See, that's what I keep TELLING IDI, but they don't hear it. It doesn't take a genius to see why, either: it's all they've GOT. Well, that's fine. If you won't believe me, take it up with Henry.

Yippee! And what they have has not been matched or linked with any known suspect. The rest of what they have will never be matched or linked with any known suspect, because it is so degraded. And the former will never be produced in court since there is doubt over its origin e.g. autopsy procedures.

In laymans terms IDI actually have no evidence, simply the Ramsey defence e.g. an intruder did it.


.

 

[SunnieRN]

SD, that is what I thought and thank you very much for answering my question! At the site it talks about touch DNA and it's reliability and when it is used and why. This scenario is a contaminated sample as Patsy is a known entity in touching the long johns and her touch dna was not identified or isolated from the same spots.

MF, maybe you can educate us to how this may be seen differently by Aussie LE.

 

[MurriFlower]

SD, that is what I thought and thank you very much for answering my question! At the site it talks about touch DNA and it's reliability and when it is used and why. This scenario is a contaminated sample as Patsy is a known entity in touching the long johns and her touch dna was not identified or isolated from the same spots.

MF, maybe you can educate us to how this may be seen differently by Aussie LE.

I think it's not correct to say touch DNA is unreliable. It is no more or less reliable than DNA collected in any other fashion. The fact that it hasn't yet been matched is the problem.

I know that there is a form of centralised system here, where convicted criminals are DNA tested and there have been matches to DNA collected at crime scenes from unsolved cases.

We have to understand that there is an estimation of something like 90% of crimes committed by 20% of the population, so it stands to reason that convicted criminals would be responsible for many unsolved crimes.

However, there is also a large number of unsolved murders in every country and I don't think we can assume that they were all committed by serial 'criminals'. Many would have been a single instance, while others would have been committed by people who have never been under suspicion, but who have killed previously.

The latter is what I think may have happened in JBR's case. It seems incredible that so little 'evidence' has been found, but the DNA is just one indicator that yes, there was an intruder (not the parents), who murdered her. Just on this forum are people who have studied many unsolved crimes and it stands to reason that there are also criminals who have similarly set out to study how not to leave behind evidence. Having said that there are quite a few unidentified items, some may be just innocent, but others may be from the perp. Due to their nature, it may not be until after the murderer is identified (by DNA) that the evidence clicks into place. So, while I can see that the DNA is not the solving of the crime in itself necessarily, it will be a massive clue when it's source is discovered. Then the fiber, hair and other artifacts associated with the crime will become important in convincing a jury of his guilt.

We can argue the significance of the touch DNA and the presence or absence of other DNA for ever without coming to a solution. But it is no different to, say, having a photograph of someone who was seen at a crime. Unless and until that person is identified, this murder is not going to be solved.

 

[MurriFlower]

NOTHING! They didn't tell me a THING! I asked exactly the questions we've been asking here and they didn't answer ONE of them. They gave me a CYA response about how they can't talk about cases being investigated. The ba*****s!

Damned unsporting of them!!

That's true of MOST DNA testing methods. But yes, that's what I got from it as well. Henry Lee himself said that about half the DNA found at crime scenes cannot be matched to anyone, and that's perfectly normal. And that's with REGULAR testing methods. It's only going to get worse as detection methods get more sensitive. I'm not a forensic expert by any means, but I am a thinker. And it seems to me if they have unidentified DNA that consistenly dead-ends on them, it should be discounted.

See, that's what I keep TELLING IDI, but they don't hear it. It doesn't take a genius to see why, either: it's all they've GOT. Well, that's fine. If you won't believe me, take it up with Henry.

Well, it's evidence and that is more than what RDI has got, (except "we BELIEVE they did it"). You cannot discount evidence just because you are unable to identify its source or who left it. You could liken it to a photograph of someone who was suspected of being involved in a crime, as happened in a famous case here. The photo was taken at a service station if memory serves and he fitted the description given by one of the victims. It was quite some time before he was identified and it was only after that he was able to be placed at the scene, etc and eventually enough evidence was collected for a jury to convict him.

It would be very irresponsible for LE to "discount" evidence of any kind and especially DNA evidence, matching earlier DNA from another location, both of which were found in places that were associated with the sexual assault.

 

[SunnieRN]

I think it's not correct to say touch DNA is unreliable. It is no more or less reliable than DNA collected in any other fashion. The fact that it hasn't yet been matched is the problem.

I know that there is a form of centralised system here, where convicted criminals are DNA tested and there have been matches to DNA collected at crime scenes from unsolved cases.

We have to understand that there is an estimation of something like 90% of crimes committed by 20% of the population, so it stands to reason that convicted criminals would be responsible for many unsolved crimes.

However, there is also a large number of unsolved murders in every country and I don't think we can assume that they were all committed by serial 'criminals'. Many would have been a single instance, while others would have been committed by people who have never been under suspicion, but who have killed previously.

The latter is what I think may have happened in JBR's case. It seems incredible that so little 'evidence' has been found, but the DNA is just one indicator that yes, there was an intruder (not the parents), who murdered her. Just on this forum are people who have studied many unsolved crimes and it stands to reason that there are also criminals who have similarly set out to study how not to leave behind evidence. Having said that there are quite a few unidentified items, some may be just innocent, but others may be from the perp. Due to their nature, it may not be until after the murderer is identified (by DNA) that the evidence clicks into place. So, while I can see that the DNA is not the solving of the crime in itself necessarily, it will be a massive clue when it's source is discovered. Then the fiber, hair and other artifacts associated with the crime will become important in convincing a jury of his guilt.

We can argue the significance of the touch DNA and the presence or absence of other DNA for ever without coming to a solution. But it is no different to, say, having a photograph of someone who was seen at a crime. Unless and until that person is identified, this murder is not going to be solved.

First of all, touch dna is amplified dna:

What is Touch DNA?

• Touch DNA is not Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA. LCN DNA profiling allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, from as little as 5 to 20 cells. Because of the small amount of starting DNA in LCN samples, many more cycles of amplification are necessary.

• Touch DNA samples at Bode are processed/amplified exactly the same way as blood, semen, saliva etc, and are therefore admissible in court.

Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene. Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from countless items including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, and luggage handles, just to name a few.

However, since Touch DNA is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or other body fluids, it is more difficult to obtain DNA profiles from touch DNA samples. The key to obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis and using the sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells.

Many labs test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. In the “swabbing method”, the surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard items such as glass or plastic. The “cutting method” may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells. These two approaches can be successful on many items of evidence and both are used by Bode Technology; however they both have the limitation of placing unnecessary substrate (the cotton swab itself or the fabric cuttings) into the small DNA processing tube. There is a limited amount of substrate that can be placed in a tube, and the substrate itself may “trap” some cells during processing, which would decrease the likelihood of obtaining results.

In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode has recently started using the “Scraping” and “Tape Lift” methods, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) are either scraped with a blade, or sampled with a small piece of tape, to collect possible cells. Due to the lack of unnecessary substrate generated by these methods (scraping produces a small “pile” of fiber, cells, and debris that can easily be placed in the DNA processing tube), a larger surface area can be sampled. An increase in surface area increases the number of possible cells recovered; therefore, increasing the chances of obtaining a DNA profile.

The scraping/tape lift methods are ideal in situations where the scientist can locate areas on the item which are most likely to contain the perpetrator’s skin cells. If clothing were left at the crime scene by the perpetrator, pressure points on the clothing such as the interior neck of a shirt or the band inside a hat, are excellent candidates for these sampling methods. In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.

Through improvements in sampling methods corresponding to increasingly sensitive DNA testing methods, and through continual education of the criminal justice community regarding the testing possibilities, Touch DNA is enabling forensic scientists to provide information in cases which were once unsolvable.


Amplified dna is only as accurate as the touch dna that is there. Remember MF that Patsy admitted that she touched the long johns. So whose dna did they amplify? They had a contaminated sample to begin with as Patsy HAD to have touched it and it was NOT known whether the long jons were new or previously worn.

 

[joeskidbeck]

MF, "touch" dna is considerably less reliable than let's say dna derived from blood, saliva, or sperm. You know this. If the dna had been from any of these three, I would be giving IDI some serious thought, but it wasnt and it never will be. It is not evidence until we know where it came from. Looks like the score just evened up. You feel RDI has no evidence, we feel IDI has no evidence. Where in the world will we go from here?