Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Anti-K]

It doesn't matter if there has been 1 in 100 cases where that has happened, it doesn't pertain to this case.

Two points, the window was highlighted by Smit and, as I've said before, his testimony about the method of entry is extremely light on forensic support. He wouldn't be coy if something was found and if he expected to find debris from outside dragged through the window, he most certainly expected fiber and fingerprint evidence. Oh yeah...he mentioned glove prints in a desperate Hail Mary.

Also, JR highlighted the window almost immediately, the house was closed up, forensics could have waited a while and still got results.
This wasn't terribly time sensitive.

Actually, Smit’s testimony is heavy on evidence to support his claim: that a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.

Smit’s testimony is light on evidence that the entry occurred “that” night.
At any rate, there is no reason to think that someone coming through the window would have necessarily left fiber evidence.
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-basement.htm

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not sure what you're referring to for the "could be" paragraph. I know the DNA could be evidence of criminal intent or of innocent transfer just like PR and Burke's tdna on the nightgown could be malicious or innocent.

In other cases, that's absolutely correct. But 6 profiles were found and as I told Scarlett, the DNA "match" on JB's clothes isn't a match because of the marker count. It can be said to be "consistent with" which the fibers found were to PR's clothing the night of the murder as well.

That was my point exactly. I'm not excusing the unsourced fibers, I was simply stating that I don't believe it's fair to excuse the Ramsey's fibers as innocent transfer, yet use the unsourced fibers as evidence of an intruder and I explained why. I said I don't hold either , as in the DNA OR the fibers, to much because we don't know how either ended up where they did and both can easily be manipulated to fit into a certain theory. The fibers were consistent with Patsy's clothes and the DNA was also consistent. Neither is a match and neither proves who killed JB that night.

Again, I said if the Ramsey's fibers were innocently transferred then the unsourced fibers could have been as well. I'm not weighing one as more important than the other, just stating that we shouldn't weigh one side of the fiber evidence better than the other. I explained why I felt the Ramsey's fibers were important already. Yes, they very well could be innocent transfer and I am well aware of it. The unsourced fibers could very well be from an intruder, or from the party, the basement, etc... The argument goes both ways as I previously stated. Again, I don't hold the DNA or fiber evidence to my theory because again we don't know how any of it made it's way to the room. All we have is speculation.

IMO, the problem is when people say, “we shouldn't weigh one side of the fiber evidence better than the other.” Of course we should.

The brown cotton fibers found in the genital area, and on the tape and the ligatures have exculpatory value for the Ramsey’s because they cannot be traced to them. These fibers are more incriminating for whoever left them than Ramsey fibers can be for the Ramseys (we know the victim had frequent exposure to Ramsey fibers). Fibers, hairs, DNA – trace evidence of whatever kind that is found in incriminating locations always have incriminating and exculpatory value.

If my child was sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown person and if my fibers were found, and unknown fibers and unknown DNA were found, the unknown fibers and unknown DNA would be incriminating for the unknown person and exculpatory for me; and my fibers would be neither here nor there. They would not necessarily be incriminating for me, and not exculpatory to the unknown person.

A further example: Kolar tells us that there are 6 profiles (one is probably Jonbenet’s). He reasons as if all six were of equal value. They are not. For example, the one that is consistent with Jonbenet’s is not the same as the ones that came from an unidentified source. One of those six profiles occurs I three separate locations and on two articles of clothing, and one of them is commingled in the victim’s crotch, inside of her panties. That profile is certainly of much greater value than one found beneath fingernails.

One more example: the fibers can only ever be said to be of the same type as a Ramsey fiber. Anyone could possess something made of the same fiber. Could anyone possess the same DNA?
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

it is not possible to trace something which disappeared. causing items with matching fibers to disappear should be taken into consideration as a great probability. the "made to disappear" cannot be proven but the fibers being linked to an intruder and only an intruder cannot be proven either

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IMO, the problem is when people say, “we shouldn't weigh one side of the fiber evidence better than the other.” Of course we should.

The brown cotton fibers found in the genital area, and on the tape and the ligatures have exculpatory value for the Ramsey’s because they cannot be traced to them. These fibers are more incriminating for whoever left them than Ramsey fibers can be for the Ramseys (we know the victim had frequent exposure to Ramsey fibers). Fibers, hairs, DNA – trace evidence of whatever kind that is found in incriminating locations always have incriminating and exculpatory value.

If my child was sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown person and if my fibers were found, and unknown fibers and unknown DNA were found, the unknown fibers and unknown DNA would be incriminating for the unknown person and exculpatory for me; and my fibers would be neither here nor there. They would not necessarily be incriminating for me, and not exculpatory to the unknown person.

A further example: Kolar tells us that there are 6 profiles (one is probably Jonbenet’s). He reasons as if all six were of equal value. They are not. For example, the one that is consistent with Jonbenet’s is not the same as the ones that came from an unidentified source. One of those six profiles occurs I three separate locations and on two articles of clothing, and one of them is commingled in the victim’s crotch, inside of her panties. That profile is certainly of much greater value than one found beneath fingernails.

One more example: the fibers can only ever be said to be of the same type as a Ramsey fiber. Anyone could possess something made of the same fiber. Could anyone possess the same DNA?
...

AK

Kolar only speculates on the 6 profiles so he can further a book about the R's being the killers so he can earn some more bank.

It is ridiculous to me that anyone would consider that if you consider one profile you have to consider all.

Thanks for being reasonable AK.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

it is not possible to trace something which disappeared. causing items with matching fibers to disappear should be taken into consideration as a great probability. the "made to disappear" cannot be proven but the fibers being linked to an intruder and only an intruder cannot be proven either

The problem you have with this theory is that even if there were items that disappeared, their fibers would still be there so in doing fiber collection more of the same fibers should have been found in the house somewhere. Even if they did not find the item.

That is not the case.

 

[Tawny]

Can we please stop accusing Kolar of only trying to sell books? It's been made clear he is an acceptable, reliable source. Dismissing his book on the grounds of greed and agenda is opinion only and only serves to halt conversation rather than to further it. JMO.

 

[2 percent]

Actually, Smit’s testimony is heavy on evidence to support his claim: that a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.

Smit’s testimony is light on evidence that the entry occurred “that” night.
At any rate, there is no reason to think that someone coming through the window would have necessarily left fiber evidence.
...

AK

Again....small window, had to sit and scrape against a lip in the window (there's even a pic of Smit doing this).

But here we go again with magic evidence. Fibers can be shed during a molestation but not while squeezing through a window, scraping against a metal lip, dangling 5ft over the basement floor. Of course debris can come in but no fibers can transfer.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Again....small window, had to sit and scrape against a lip in the window (there's even a pic of Smit doing this).

But here we go again with magic evidence. Fibers can be shed during a molestation but not while squeezing through a window, scraping against a metal lip, dangling 5ft over the basement floor. Of course debris can come in but no fibers can transfer.

That does not mean they would leave fibers. Not all materials shed the same way, and if they were wearing a jacket of some sort because it was december, That may keep fibers from falling.

Fibers are not left like snow..

As for sources, we all have to find valid sources that we trust to rely on. No one can tell another what is a valuable source.

 

[gramcracker]

The problem you have with this theory is that even if there were items that disappeared, their fibers would still be there so in doing fiber collection more of the same fibers should have been found in the house somewhere. Even if they did not find the item.

That is not the case.

That does not mean they would leave fibers. Not all materials shed the same way, and if they were wearing a jacket of some sort because it was december, That may keep fibers from falling.

Fibers are not left like snow..

either that is an inconsistent view or it supports the supposition that the source of the brown fibers was destroyed or hidden/removed to avoid discovery

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

either that is an inconsistent view or it supports the supposition that the source of the brown fibers was destroyed or hidden/removed to avoid discovery

yeah, No..

The fibers not being on the window sill is explainable. If they came in in a coat they most likely would have taken it off in the house, Hence shedding fibers, But the coat itself may be a tight weatherproof weave, that would not shed.

I don't see an either or, I see the complete process of reasonable thinking.

 

[Anti-K]

Kolar only speculates on the 6 profiles so he can further a book about the R's being the killers so he can earn some more bank.

It is ridiculous to me that anyone would consider that if you consider one profile you have to consider all.

Thanks for being reasonable AK.

Saying that either all 6 profiles must be accepted or none can be accepted is straight out of the How Not to Reason Handbook. So sad.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Again....small window, had to sit and scrape against a lip in the window (there's even a pic of Smit doing this).

But here we go again with magic evidence. Fibers can be shed during a molestation but not while squeezing through a window, scraping against a metal lip, dangling 5ft over the basement floor. Of course debris can come in but no fibers can transfer.

Not all fibers are created equal; some shed easier than others and some transfer easier than others and some objects attract fibers and collect fibers better than others. You don’t know anything about what the killer was wearing and you certainly don’t know if it was something that would have left any trace behind. The most that we can say about this is that (as far as we know) no fibers were found in the window area.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

either that is an inconsistent view or it supports the supposition that the source of the brown fibers was destroyed or hidden/removed to avoid discovery

It supports the supposition that that item was removed from the home. It doesn’t say anything about why it was removed. If that item was a pair of gloves, and if the killer was an intruder than that item was probably removed from the house simply because – well, they were his gloves.

Disposing of things reveals a person with forensic concern. They don’t want investigators finding evidence that can connect them to the crime. Of course, I understand why we might think, if RDI, that the Ramseys might have wanted to dispose of some things. And, some things are missing (gloves? roll of tape, notepad pages, remainder of cord, end of paint brush), but if the Ramseys were going to dispose of things than why would they not get rid of the whole paintbrush (why even use it?), the whole notepad (why even use it?), the pen? Items missing and items (unnecessarily used) left behind simply do not support RDI-disposal.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

Not all fibers are created equal; some shed easier than others and some transfer easier than others and some objects attract fibers and collect fibers better than others. You don’t know anything about what the killer was wearing and you certainly don’t know if it was something that would have left any trace behind. The most that we can say about this is that (as far as we know) no fibers were found in the window area.
...

AK

No but I know that fibers that would shed during molestation would most certainly shed under the conditions I described during breaking in that window.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No but I know that fibers that would shed during molestation would most certainly shed under the conditions I described during breaking in that window.

How do you know that? I don't see any facts that would provide such information.

If someone removed a coat they wore in that would give a reason for their to be fibers that are not on the window sill. My guess would be that the fibers shed would have been from moving JBR around, carrying her.. That seems reasonable.

 

[Venom]

IMO that's reaching pretty far.
This intruder comes in how, through a door or that window wearing a coat? Then takes his coat off? He also brings duct tape, cord, and tissues*, writes a ransom note using pen and pad from house and puts them neatly back, sexually assaults and kills JBR in the house, still leaves the note, puts coat back on and leaves forgetting the tissues.
*tissues. We're left on table with the pineapple and PR doesn't remember them being in the house

He leaves no hairs, fingerprints, just 2 partial microscopic DNA pieces, and possibly some fibers. But NO fibers from brushing against a window that he squeezed through.

 

[Anti-K]

No but I know that fibers that would shed during molestation would most certainly shed under the conditions I described during breaking in that window.

No, you don’t know that. You just made it up. A few people have gone through that window – Smit, BPD officers, at least one forum poster (not this forum!), etc; but I have never seen anyone claim that fibers were left behind by any of them. Nor is there any reason to believe that any fibers would be left. In fact, I’m not aware of any cases where fiber evidence was obtained from a window used for a b’n’e – not saying that it’s never happened (it probably has), but there’s no reason to say that it would have happened here.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

IMO that's reaching pretty far.
This intruder comes in how, through a door or that window wearing a coat? Then takes his coat off? He also brings duct tape, cord, and tissues*, writes a ransom note using pen and pad from house and puts them neatly back, sexually assaults and kills JBR in the house, still leaves the note, puts coat back on and leaves forgetting the tissues.
*tissues. We're left on table with the pineapple and PR doesn't remember them being in the house

He leaves no hairs, fingerprints, just 2 partial microscopic DNA pieces, and possibly some fibers. But NO fibers from brushing against a window that he squeezed through.

The killer brought in tissues? Good grief. Please tell me you’re joking.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

The killer brought in tissues? Good grief. Please tell me you’re joking.
...

AK

Why is that so out of bounds? We have magic non shedding pants, but dropped tissues are impossible?

Everyone needs to step back and assess their emotional investment sometimes.

Deep breath...