Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Blue Bottle 01]

There are no matching samples of DNA, none.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There are no matching samples of DNA, none.

Yes. There is but that is okay that you don't want to accept it. Like I said, It does not make it any less true.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Provide the evidence then.

<modsnip>

 

[Anti-K]

I just read pages 413-414, are you saying that there were 6 intruders?
Pages 425-426, distal stain 007-2 is a partial microscopic sample. So we are to believe this 007-2 profile is from the intruder, and the other 5 profiles are just innocent transfer? Who's to say that this partial microscopic profile isn't just innocent transfer?

No, I’m not saying that there were six intruders. That’s just silly.
There is no reasonable innocent transfer explanation for the CODIS/tDNA samples.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Frequently those finding the tDNA as the final smoking gun solution to the crime mention the ”match” between the tDNA and the panties 007 2 sample. What you, BettyBaby00, and otg brought up regarding the difference between “consistent with” and “matching” is worth exploring a bit. A question Cynic brings up is just how many tDNA markers “matched” (the word “matched” is ML’s) the panties Distal 007 2 sample. We don’t know. No one has shared the contents of that report with the public. As Cynic says, it’s pretty ridiculous to claim a “match” if it’s only a few markers.

Also, in a discussion between Cynic, Tricia and Dr. Krane the question was asked about an exoneration of the Rs based on this DNA. To re-quote -
Cynic: When you and I talked I just asked you as a hypothetical, if a District Attorney is, for example, exonerating people that were suspects for many years based exclusively on the DNA that we’ve just discussed here, is that an overreach?
Dr. Krane: Well, let me draw particular attention to the word, “exclusively”: right, if that is the sole basis for the decision, I think that conveys a lack of understanding of what’s involved with those particular types of DNA test results. (Before anyone brings up ML’s stated other "exculpatory evidence” we also are left in the dark as to what that is because it is left vague in ML’s letter to the R’s and in her press announcement.)

Recall what Carol McKinney of Fox News stated, that when asked ML claimed she did not know about the other tDNA found. According to Kolar, ML’s investigator Horita knew about the other samples of tDNA. Kolar essentially questions that ML did not know and moreover, did not allow the public to know about the other samples before she apologized to and exonerated the Rs.

For me, from these instances, one could be led to question ML’s judgment, her knowledge of DNA, and her motivations. So, it may just come down to the “Who Do You Trust?” question otg posed.

Call me cynical, but as politicized as this case was, Meara's examples of deductive reasoning could be helpful to apply --maybe just for me.

All public officials always speak the undistorted truth.
ML was a public official.
Therefore, ML always spoke the undistorted truth.

Only caveat is the first premise has to be true for the conclusion to be true. mho

The problem here, and to his credit Dr Krane picked up on this immediately, is the use of the word “exclusively.” Lacey did not bas the exoneration “exclusively” on the DNA. That’s a RDI fabrication, and Cynin and anyone else who claims such is guilty of perpetuating the myth; shame on them.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Things shouldn&#8217;t be so hard to understand. Let me try this, let&#8217;s say that the CODIS sample is only 9 markers. Each marker refers to a specific location. Let&#8217;s call them Location 1, Location2, Location 3, etc, up to Location 9. And let&#8217;s say that Location 1 is identified as A, and Location 2 is identified as B, and location 3 is identified as C, etc up to location 9 being identified as I.

CODIS sample:
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E
Location 6: F
Location 7: G
Location 8: H
Location 9: I

Now, let&#8217;s say that the tDNA samples (right and left hip) are only 5 markers. We don&#8217;t know that they are fewer in number than the CODIS sample, we only know that they are weaker. Weaker means shorter peaks, NOT fewer markers; but let&#8217;s favor the RDI position and say it means fewer: so, 5 markers each. If the tDNA samples match the CODIS sample then the markers would be:

tDNA sample (right hip):
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E

And, tDNA sample (left hip):
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E

These samples all match, which means that they are all CONSISTENT. &#8220;Match&#8221; and &#8220;consistent&#8221; are essentially the same thing. There are no markers that do not match. If even ONE marker does not match then the samples would be INCONSISTENT. There would be no match and we could say that one EXCLUDES the other.

The only way that we could INCLUDE a Ramsey would be if there DNA was like this:
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E
Location 6: F
Location 7: G
Location 8: H
Location 9: I

If even ONE marker, let&#8217;s say Location 1 was different, let&#8217;s say Location 1 was Z, then their DNA would be INCONSISTENT with that sample. That Ramsey would be EXCLUDED.
If a Ramsey &#8211; take your pick &#8211; had DNA that matched the CODIS (or, the tDNA) sample, then we could safely say that that DNA came from them and there would be no reason to look further and the DNA would NOT be in CODIS.

Questions?
...

AK

 

[Montjoy]

There are cases where dna is direct evidence

rsbm --

No, you are incorrect, and thus this is misinformation.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Things shouldn’t be so hard to understand. Let me try this, let’s say that the CODIS sample is only 9 markers. Each marker refers to a specific location. Let’s call them Location 1, Location2, Location 3, etc, up to Location 9. And let’s say that Location 1 is identified as A, and Location 2 is identified as B, and location 3 is identified as C, etc up to location 9 being identified as I.

CODIS sample:
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E
Location 6: F
Location 7: G
Location 8: H
Location 9: I

Now, let’s say that the tDNA samples (right and left hip) are only 5 markers. We don’t know that they are fewer in number than the CODIS sample, we only know that they are weaker. Weaker means shorter peaks, NOT fewer markers; but let’s favor the RDI position and say it means fewer: so, 5 markers each. If the tDNA samples match the CODIS sample then the markers would be:

tDNA sample (right hip):
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E

And, tDNA sample (left hip):
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E

These samples all match, which means that they are all CONSISTENT. “Match” and “consistent” are essentially the same thing. There are no markers that do not match. If even ONE marker does not match then the samples would be INCONSISTENT. There would be no match and we could say that one EXCLUDES the other.

The only way that we could INCLUDE a Ramsey would be if there DNA was like this:
Location 1: A
Location 2: B
Location 3: C
Location 4: D
Location 5: E
Location 6: F
Location 7: G
Location 8: H
Location 9: I

If even ONE marker, let’s say Location 1 was different, let’s say Location 1 was Z, then their DNA would be INCONSISTENT with that sample. That Ramsey would be EXCLUDED.
If a Ramsey – take your pick – had DNA that matched the CODIS (or, the tDNA) sample, then we could safely say that that DNA came from them and there would be no reason to look further and the DNA would NOT be in CODIS.

Questions?
...

AK

I wish they had a Thank you Button with flowers and candy..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

rsbm --

No, you are incorrect, and thus this is misinformation.

Actually it is true that there are cases where DNA is direct evidence but I will let you google that and see the cases involved.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Questions?
...

AK

Where's the data report that shows the match?

 

[DeDee]

RSBM for space

cynic has four valuable, some may say irrefutable, posts regarding the DNA on the Rebuttal Discovery ID Show/DNA (Non-Intruder Posters Only) Thread

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147105

:bump:



Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Questions?
...

AK

Answers?

 

[2 percent]

Actually it is true that there are cases where DNA is direct evidence but I will let you google that and see the cases involved.

I already know. Paternity cases.
Put very simply DNA can never be direct evidence because it deals in probabilities. The exception in paternity cases exists because the known pool is smaller, the conclusion often just a formality.

 

[Anti-K]

Where's the data report that shows the match?

It’s pretty easy to find sources for the claim that the CODIS/tDNA samples match but I’ve never seen anything that supports the claim that the samples don’t match.

Where's the data report that shows no match?
Where is it said by anyone associated with the investigation that there is no match?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

:bump:



Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Well, if the DNA ever leads us to the identity of DNA-Man, and if an investigation of him warrants an arrest then maybe he can hire Cynic to take part in his defence.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM
MARK BECKNER'S STATEMENT
&#8220;The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
<snip>
http://tinyurl.com/n6pt3kz

.
Rocky Mountain News; Updated July 10, 2008 at 12:14 a.m.

Previous tests had already determined an unidentified male left DNA evidence in JonBenet's underwear. Bode scientists scraped the area on JonBenet's leggings where someone would have placed their hands to pull them down, Williamson [Bode's director of forensic casework] said.

"We did get a DNA profile," she said. "What we got is DNA that matched the undergarments."
<snip>
The Ramsey case: Blood samples have been taken from John and Patsy Ramsey; John's son, John Andrew Ramsey; John's daughter, Melinda Ramsey; friends and others close to the family. No matches were found. The latest evidence is a new test of so-called "touch" DNA, which also didn't match any member of the Ramsey family.
http://tinyurl.com/mffo34v
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

Well I don’t expect to convince anyone (respectful disagreement, AK) regards the context of using DNA “exclusively” in ML’s exoneration action, I view the timing of ML’s pronouncement pointing to what ML obviously believed was the gold standard – a match of tDNA. Perhaps others here may have interest in this timing.

2003: Denver Lab retrieves the sample of DNA from the panties which was enhanced to 10 markers and entered into CODIS.
2007: Bode Labs scrapes the long-johns and retrieves the tDNA. (To my knowledge no one on this forum has viewed this lab report, so we do not know how many markers there were. While the following linked article from 2003 is somewhat dated it does give additional info on how defense attorneys might evaluate DNA analysis http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html )
2008: ML “exonerates” the Rs.

So when ML states in her press announcement “previous scientific exculpatory evidence,” one may conjecture, as I have, that she is referencing the distal 007-2 DNA, because it is her “AHA” moment of a match that an intruder touched the long-johns as well. If there had been other “scientific exculpatory evidence” prior to Bode’s analysis of the tDNA, ML would have used it ( ML was considered by many around her to be firmly an intruder theorist.) It’s for this reason I take the same view as Cynic that ML is basing her exoneration of the Rs on DNA, and this is how I interpret an understanding of the word “exclusively” used by Cynic and Krane.

Some here likely know what "reductio ad absudum" and “slippery slope’ arguments are. Those can be used humorously, and perhaps mockingly, and I believe that was Kolar’s intent on discussing “6 intruders” able to enter like circus midgets through the broken basement window. If any of us here echo his viewpoint of the “cagey 6,” it likely is a bit of a mocking stance. But these kind of arguments are not unique to either side - IDI or RDI.

Off topic, but here’s a humorous example of reductio ad absurdum: The pointy-haired boss in Dilbert announces a plan to rank all of the engineers 'from best to worst' so as 'to get rid of the bottom 10%.' Dilbert's co-worker Wally, included in the bottom 10%, responds that the plan is 'logically flawed' and proceeds to extend the range of his boss's argument. Wally asserts that the boss's plan, if made permanent, will mean continual dismissals (there will always be a bottom 10%) until there are fewer than 10 engineers and the boss will 'have to fire body parts instead of whole people.' The boss's logic will, Wally maintains (with a touch of hyperbole), lead to 'torsos and glands wandering around unable to use keyboards . . ., blood and bile everywhere!' These horrendous results will be the consequence of extending the boss's line of argument; hence, the boss's position should be rejected."(James Jasinksi, Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Sage, 2001)

All mho.

 

[Anti-K]

Kolar says no Ramsey DNA on panties or leggings:

Q. So did any of the DNA evidence lead back to any of the family members?
A (Kolar): There was nothing in the underwear or the longjohns that Jonbenet was wearing that had been tested that came back with family member&#8217;s...&#8221;
At 9:35 mark of video http://tinyurl.com/me5tz4m
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well I don’t expect to convince anyone (respectful disagreement, AK) regards the context of using DNA “exclusively” in ML’s exoneration action, I view the timing of ML’s pronouncement pointing to what ML obviously believed was the gold standard – a match of tDNA. Perhaps others here may have interest in this timing.

2003: Denver Lab retrieves the sample of DNA from the panties which was enhanced to 10 markers and entered into CODIS.
2007: Bode Labs scrapes the long-johns and retrieves the tDNA. (To my knowledge no one on this forum has viewed this lab report, so we do not know how many markers there were. While the following linked article from 2003 is somewhat dated it does give additional info on how defense attorneys might evaluate DNA analysis http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html )
2008: ML “exonerates” the Rs.

So when ML states in her press announcement “previous scientific exculpatory evidence,” one may conjecture, as I have, that she is referencing the distal 007-2 DNA, because it is her “AHA” moment of a match that an intruder touched the long-johns as well. If there had been other “scientific exculpatory evidence” prior to Bode’s analysis of the tDNA, ML would have used it ( ML was considered by many around her to be firmly an intruder theorist.) It’s for this reason I take the same view as Cynic that ML is basing her exoneration of the Rs on DNA, and this is how I interpret an understanding of the word “exclusively” used by Cynic and Krane.

Some here likely know what "reductio ad absudum" and “slippery slope’ arguments are. Those can be used humorously, and perhaps mockingly, and I believe that was Kolar’s intent on discussing “6 intruders” able to enter like circus midgets through the broken basement window. If any of us here echo his viewpoint of the “cagey 6,” it likely is a bit of a mocking stance. But these kind of arguments are not unique to either side - IDI or RDI.

Off topic, but here’s a humorous example of reductio ad absurdum: The pointy-haired boss in Dilbert announces a plan to rank all of the engineers 'from best to worst' so as 'to get rid of the bottom 10%.' Dilbert's co-worker Wally, included in the bottom 10%, responds that the plan is 'logically flawed' and proceeds to extend the range of his boss's argument. Wally asserts that the boss's plan, if made permanent, will mean continual dismissals (there will always be a bottom 10%) until there are fewer than 10 engineers and the boss will 'have to fire body parts instead of whole people.' The boss's logic will, Wally maintains (with a touch of hyperbole), lead to 'torsos and glands wandering around unable to use keyboards . . ., blood and bile everywhere!' These horrendous results will be the consequence of extending the boss's line of argument; hence, the boss's position should be rejected."(James Jasinksi, Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Sage, 2001)

All mho.

Yes, Kolar does resort to "reductio ad absurdum;" however, it is based on a logical fallacy – the excluded middle(or, false dichotomy; or, false dilemma, etc). So, the joke truly is on him.
.

I agree that the CODIS sample (distal stain...) is probably the “previous scientific exculpatory evidence” that Lacey cites, however I think that ALL the trace evidence, and possibly the document analysis, falls into this category. And, she adds “with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.”
Even if we disagree with Lacey, the exoneration was not based “exclusively” on the DNA.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

Interesting. And by interesting I mean that the person from Bode does not state the Rs were excluded.


This ...

The Ramsey case: Blood samples have been taken from John and Patsy Ramsey; John's son, John Andrew Ramsey; John's daughter, Melinda Ramsey; friends and others close to the family. No matches were found. The latest evidence is a new test of so-called "touch" DNA, which also didn't match any member of the Ramsey family.

Is not a statement from Bode. At the end of the article, which is clearly separate from the main body of info, the reporters / the paper have recounted the "evidence" in the case; its a listing made by them / the paper. A list which BTW which contains some errors.

For instance:

*they list shoe impression analysis. To the best of my knowledge the only footprint LE was ever interested in was the Hi-Tech boot print; boots which BR was reported to have owned, but were never recovered by police for analysis.

*They state that "presumably" this analysis was done, as pictures were taken of "footprints in the snow." The fact there were none that morning has been extensively covered by the media..refer to the mocking of police for making the "no footprints in the snow, therefore no intruder" debacle.

*they mention all the fibers recovered from the scene, but fail to mention that fibers consistent with PRs jacket were found on several key items.

*they discuss the RN, and that it was analyzed. They give no mention of any of the results, which there were many.

Regarding the case itself, and their involvement, Bode's website only states the following under their "cold case" section:

Touch DNA collection procedures were applied to evidence from the JonBenet Ramsey cold case that resulted in a potentially probative DNA profile.

ETA: you forgot the rest, where he states it's rather strange considering they dressed her for bed. Or that PR and BRs DNA was on her nightgown.