Ad hominem.
Let me know when you've got something, OK? I can wait.
The idea that someone besides the DNA owner unwittingly deposited someone elses DNA twice at a murder scene is absurd.
It requires the DNA owner to be innocent, to have an alibi. The probability is really low in comparison to direct transfer, and thats why its an absurd idea.
WHAT? How was I attacking anyone personally? It's an established fact: touch DNA is far more sensitive than older DNA testing methods.
Don't test me, HOTYH. You wouldn't like the result.
I'm not the one you need to tell that to.
It might help your argument if we could actually FIND the owner.
I know we don't have a touch DNA expert among us. If we did, they would probably testify that the odds of this DNA being present in these locations and in these amounts innocently could be compared with an asteroid strike. I believe that this is the position you've been trying to defend.
It might help your argument if we could actually FIND the owner.
Finding this DNA was supremely important because it raised the likelihood that an intruder actually killed JBR. The probability of intruder is now raised beyond a reasonable doubt.
This might seem odd to you, but finding the owner of this DNA is not as significant as you might think. Believe it or not, its not necessarily a case closer.
No, absolutely not. I don't know if this DNA is the killer or his accomplice, but whatever it IS, what it ISN'T is RDI!!
That's right.
Plus, fibers are far more abundant than DNA. No comparison.
If those fibers are from Patsy's jacket, where is her DNA? Where is her DNA on the garrote?
You have it just the other way around.
Good questions. That's what I was trying to find out before I got the "state secret" treatment.
You have it just the other way around.
Good questions. That's what I was trying to find out before I got the "state secret" treatment.
I don't look at the male DNA as being placed twice. It was ONE occurrence, on two garments. It was left at the same time. It's not like the donor deposited it on two separate occasions.
One thing is correct, though. An identified donor does NOT necessarily mean case closed.
There is something that bothers me, though about the two locations. Gotta try to sort it out a bit.
Oh the pain.
How do you figure? Do you believe there's more random DNA than fiber?
I presume you're referring to Bode.
Mum IS the word, I have to agree. Aside from ML's letter, the FBI, BPD, CBI, etc. are pretty darned quiet. Cold case status almost doesn't explain the lack of comments or even a side remark.
Some believed the silence was to protect a minor, which was one of the first on my list of totally absurd ideas.
I'll never accuse RDI of not exploring each and every one of the possible RDI scenarios, no matter how astronomically remote!
But wait, is there another reason why it would be a 'state secret'?
That's right, friend. I'm not the only one, either.
Right again.
You're batting a thousand today, HOTYH. There does seem to be something wrong about the whole thing. I remember it.
I'll take that as a compliment!
That's a can of worms in and of itself.
IOW, I have no clue.
Oh the pain!
That's right, friend. I'm not the only one, either.
OK, who else besides you believes there's more DNA than fiber? Source requested.
Based on things he's said, Henry Lee. There was also the criminologist that Bill O'Reilly talked to. I can't remember her name just now. I'll have to dig that one back up. Then, there's the pundit/lawyer I keep mentioning. But wild bulls couldn't drag THAT name out of me. I don't need that headache on top of everything else.
Fang, you are out of the will! I mean it this time!
Based on things he's said, Henry Lee. There was also the criminologist that Bill O'Reilly talked to. I can't remember her name just now. I'll have to dig that one back up. Then, there's the pundit/lawyer I keep mentioning. But wild bulls couldn't drag THAT name out of me. I don't need that headache on top of everything else.
