You, the jury

[UKGuy]

Oh yes. For one example, there's a probabililty that I'm more English than you.

I suggest placing these hypothetical test results in order of relative probability, as far as the two scrapings on anyone's leggings are concerned:

• Nobody's skin cells are in either scraping.
• Nobody's skin cells are in one scraping, and somebody's skin cells are in one scraping but there aren't enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but neither have enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but only one scraping had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, and both had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.

Holdontoyourhat,

I guess its Back To School Time with all this relative probability stuff, sounds just like what the expert witness' get paid to do in court, e.g. attempt to baffle the jury with very large numbers, talk of confidence margins, Normal models, Gaussian Copula model, Long tails, Fat tails, standard deviations, 1-sigma or two, independent events or concurrent events, etc.

Accept the IDI as stated, the dna exists and it could only have originated from one of five people, its not semen dna, so we cannot assume it maps onto an unknown male.

You do not know where the touch-dna came from. there may have been two intruders, but only one transferred dna, you just do not know, either do I.

RDI may be correct and they phoned for help in the middle of the night and this third party helped redress JonBenet, thus transferring the touch-dna onto her clothing,. That explanation is as valid as the IDI?

I reckon this should be cited to you everytime you use the touch-dna to argue for the existence of an intruder.

• Nobody's skin cells are in either scraping.
• Nobody's skin cells are in one scraping, and somebody's skin cells are in one scraping but there aren't enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but neither have enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but only one scraping had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, and both had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.

Now the problem with attempting to apply mathematics and probability to the above is that these are random events, and as far as I know nobody has developed a Skin Shedding Model, not unless you have your own Holdontoyourhat suitably trademarked Skin Shedding Model?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Certainly middle of the night help from a friend could explain the unknown DNA. Some of their friends gave samples, some did not. But I wish samples could be taken from males who were children in 1996. If EVERY male who came to both the R home and the White's home that day were tested, regardless of their age at the time, that would go a long way towards ruling out skin cell transfer from surfaces in either home. I'd think BOTH IDI and RDI would want this. For IDI, no match to ANY of those males indicates a stronger possibility for an intruder. For RDI, a positive match to any of those males indicates much less likelihood for an intruder, but does raise the issue of whether one of these male guests may have been the abuser/killer/stager and whether any of them were in the R home that night. However, a match to one of the male guests may also indicate innocent skin cell transfer. So a match from one of the male guests is more problematic than it seems.

 

[claudicici]

Yes RDI is comparatively easy, take three people and blame them either singly or in conjunction and try to work up a theory about them. What they said, how they behaved, how they looked.

IDI is the rest of the world. That's a pretty big lot of suspects. But.......I'd better get started.


OK, Claudicici, where were you on the night of the 25 Dec 1996?

...that's exactly my point about IDI ...an unknown suspect could be anyone so you can theories about anyone in the world....
oh lol and luckily I was not in the USA that christmas but I better lawyer up anyways :dance:

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

So what! None of the above mean that an intruder was ever in the house.

Even if all the above were correct, which they are not, then this is not enough to assume an intruder left all these crime-scene artifacts.

not sourced simply means unknown origin, it does not mean that they originated externally.

This mistake along with confusing touch dna with semen dna seems to be the core of the IDI, and both rely on assuming that because objects are unmatched to a legal owner and have an unknown source, then they must have been transferred to their current location by a similarly unknown and unmatched person external to the house, e.g. the intruder.

An intruder may actually have killed JonBenet, but the above crime-scene evidence does not demonstrate this. the reasoning seems to be : if i have an unknown and unmatched object, then it must have been transported to this location, by an unknown and unmatched agent.

So even if IDI is correct, using the crime-scene evidence to justify the exsistence on an intruder is fallacious.

Only semen dna would allow the conclusion that an intruder was definitely present, to reason otherwise is all mouth and no trousers!

.

Hmmm, Ukguy, you still don't get it do you?

Ok, here's a little story that might help illustrate what I mean.

About lunchtime on Christmas Day 1996, JR opened the door to a strange man. There was actually nothing strange about him, except that JR didn't know him. But they quickly began talking and got to know each other and cutting a long story short, JR invited the stranger to eat Christmas Lunch with the family. He was very personable and was soon regaling the family with stories and they had a wonderful lunch. The Rs found out he didn't have anywhere to stay that night, so they invited him to stay in JARs room. What the family didn't know, and couldn't tell from his behaviour, was that he was a Homicidal Maniac! Hereinafter referred to as HM. When the family were getting ready to go to the Whites that evening, naturally they invited him too. But HM said he didn't want to impose and anyway he was a little tired after the wonderful day and he would just watch TV and chill out in their beautiful home. The family arrived back around 9pm and the routine we are familiar with was played out, with JR and PR off to bed around 10pm. At 6am, PR gets up and soon after finds the RN, dials 911 and her friends come over. BR is still asleep, but HM wakes and joins the friends in supporting the Rs. As per script, no call comes and JR and FW go to the basement at 1pm and find JBR dead. JR gives LA 'the look' and she immediately knows he did it. PR flings herself on JBR and the group, including HM, gather and pray. So, the Cops now begin their investigation of the murder. They know statistically that the parents are the most likely suspects. But their investigations find out that there was also a Homicidal Maniac in the house that night. Confusion!! They find the HM, who has resumed his wandering ways, and bring him to the station for questioning. He is such a nice fellow, very helpful, lovely things to say about the Rs and JBR, seems genuinely upset about her death. They question him extensively about that night, and he maintains he went to sleep about 10pm and didn't wake again until 6.30am when he heard all the noise downstairs. So, what to do? Do they charge him on the basis of his HM? The DA says they need to investigate and can't charge him with murder until they have some evidence that'll stand up in court.

So, we have the evidence:

1. his DNA on JBRs longjohns, underpants.
2. fibers consistent with his clothes were on the tape, clothing and blanket

HM is charged with murder and goes to trial. Counsel for the Defence, Mr UKGuy QC, opens with address to the jury. "My client is innocent. He was sleeping when JBR was killed. His DNA was transferred to the longjohns and underpants when PR dressed her or WHEN SHE KILLED HER!! If my client had killed her there would be semen DNA on the body. My client's fibers were on the tape but so were PRs, so it's obvious she was the killer and HMs fibers got there by accident. There is no source for the tape and cord so you cannot say my client brought them or took them away. They must have been in the house and the Rs had the remnants removed by their friends/relatives or it came from the doll that PP took from the house or from a picture hanging on the wall. Therefore you cannot prove my client guilty, he is charming and friendly and must be innocent, and PR must be guilty because we don't like her."

 

[UKGuy]

Hmmm, Ukguy, you still don't get it do you?

Ok, here's a little story that might help illustrate what I mean.

About lunchtime on Christmas Day 1996, JR opened the door to a strange man. There was actually nothing strange about him, except that JR didn't know him. But they quickly began talking and got to know each other and cutting a long story short, JR invited the stranger to eat Christmas Lunch with the family. He was very personable and was soon regaling the family with stories and they had a wonderful lunch. The Rs found out he didn't have anywhere to stay that night, so they invited him to stay in JARs room. What the family didn't know, and couldn't tell from his behaviour, was that he was a Homicidal Maniac! Hereinafter referred to as HM. When the family were getting ready to go to the Whites that evening, naturally they invited him too. But HM said he didn't want to impose and anyway he was a little tired after the wonderful day and he would just watch TV and chill out in their beautiful home. The family arrived back around 9pm and the routine we are familiar with was played out, with JR and PR off to bed around 10pm. At 6am, PR gets up and soon after finds the RN, dials 911 and her friends come over. BR is still asleep, but HM wakes and joins the friends in supporting the Rs. As per script, no call comes and JR and FW go to the basement at 1pm and find JBR dead. JR gives LA 'the look' and she immediately knows he did it. PR flings herself on JBR and the group, including HM, gather and pray. So, the Cops now begin their investigation of the murder. They know statistically that the parents are the most likely suspects. But their investigations find out that there was also a Homicidal Maniac in the house that night. Confusion!! They find the HM, who has resumed his wandering ways, and bring him to the station for questioning. He is such a nice fellow, very helpful, lovely things to say about the Rs and JBR, seems genuinely upset about her death. They question him extensively about that night, and he maintains he went to sleep about 10pm and didn't wake again until 6.30am when he heard all the noise downstairs. So, what to do? Do they charge him on the basis of his HM? The DA says they need to investigate and can't charge him with murder until they have some evidence that'll stand up in court.

So, we have the evidence:

1. his DNA on JBRs longjohns, underpants.
2. fibers consistent with his clothes were on the tape, clothing and blanket

HM is charged with murder and goes to trial. Counsel for the Defence, Mr UKGuy QC, opens with address to the jury. "My client is innocent. He was sleeping when JBR was killed. His DNA was transferred to the longjohns and underpants when PR dressed her or WHEN SHE KILLED HER!! If my client had killed her there would be semen DNA on the body. My client's fibers were on the tape but so were PRs, so it's obvious she was the killer and HMs fibers got there by accident. There is no source for the tape and cord so you cannot say my client brought them or took them away. They must have been in the house and the Rs had the remnants removed by their friends/relatives or it came from the doll that PP took from the house or from a picture hanging on the wall. Therefore you cannot prove my client guilty, he is charming and friendly and must be innocent, and PR must be guilty because we don't like her."

MurriFlower,
The bolded phrase illustrates the convoluted IDI reasoning. What I am saying is if and only if there is semen dna on the body then you can state with certainty that an unmatched male person was in contact with JonBenet. Not that if you have a dead body then there must be semen dna present.

e.g. semen-dna and touch-dna tell you two different things, and absence of either can never tell you that someone mever committed a crime. Only the semen-dna tells you that the unmatched person was present at the crime-scene, the touch-dna cannot do this, this is why building an IDI theory on it will evaporate, once people realise that touch-dna and semen-dna are two different kinds of evidence .e.g. they are not the same.

1. his DNA on JBRs longjohns, underpants.
2. fibers consistent with his clothes were on the tape, clothing and blanket

Its not his DNA , its touch-dna belonging to some unmatched male person. If you just say DNA then you include semen dna thus allowing people to assume thats exactly what you mean. This is why the IDI based on the touch-dna is confused and meaningless.

The fibers were matched to Patsy's jacket, the same fibers were found entwined in the knotting of the garrote and the underside of the tape.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

his DNA[/I] , its touch-dna belonging to some unmatched male person. If you just say DNA then you include semen dna thus allowing people to assume thats exactly what you mean. This is why the IDI based on the touch-dna is confused and meaningless.

The fibers were matched to Patsy's jacket, the same fibers were found entwined in the knotting of the garrote and the underside of the tape.

Excuse me UkGuy, but you are even arguing with my story. I said it was his DNA and the fibers were consistent with his clothing. What don't you understand about this?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

• Nobody's skin cells are in either scraping.
• Nobody's skin cells are in one scraping, and somebody's skin cells are in one scraping but there aren't enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but neither have enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but only one scraping had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, and both had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.<--Actual result

Now the problem with attempting to apply mathematics and probability to the above is that these are random events, and as far as I know nobody has developed a Skin Shedding Model, not unless you have your own Holdontoyourhat suitably trademarked Skin Shedding Model?

Holdontoyourhat suitably trademarked Skin Shedding Model is nice fiction that you just made up, and is in keeping with the RDI model of making stuff up. Thanks for the impromptu illustration!

Meanwhile, I believe that any lab or rational person will argue that any one of these five results are possible, and random or not some results are more possible than others.

Clearly, the fifth result becomes truly possible if and only if the DNA owner actually handled the longjohns with both hands simultaneously, as would normally be required to lower or raise them. Any other scenario carries with it an exponentially lower probability. This is the point you are obviously avoiding and your motive for avoidance obviously doesn't involve reason.

Better check the actual result of the touch DNA experiment again, keeping in mind that this DNA matched DNA previously discovered in a swab of blood taken from JBR's inside crotch area.

Its pretty damning. PR didn't write the note, instead the DNA owner is the killer.

 

[claudicici]

we don't know how many times JB wore the long johns and underwear.It's the Ramsey's that said JB would ask anyone for help when going to the bathroom.It's PR that said those pantie's were "fair game" and we don't know how many times they were worn and not washed.JB was not given a bath that day either...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

we don't know how many times JB wore the long johns and underwear.It's the Ramsey's that said JB would ask anyone for help when going to the bathroom.It's PR that said those pantie's were "fair game" and we don't know how many times they were worn and not washed.JB was not given a bath that day either...

Nobody knows a helper handled the longjohns. However, everybody knows a criminal handled the longjohns. There's a difference here, and the difference is huge. Don't you get it? Sometimes RDI throws stuff at the wall, just to see what'll stick.

 

[UKGuy]

Holdontoyourhat suitably trademarked Skin Shedding Model is nice fiction that you just made up, and is in keeping with the RDI model of making stuff up. Thanks for the impromptu illustration!

Meanwhile, I believe that any lab or rational person will argue that any one of these five results are possible, and random or not some results are more possible than others.

Clearly, the fifth result becomes truly possible if and only if the DNA owner actually handled the longjohns with both hands simultaneously, as would normally be required to lower or raise them. Any other scenario carries with it an exponentially lower probability. This is the point you are obviously avoiding and your motive for avoidance obviously doesn't involve reason.

Better check the actual result of the touch DNA experiment again, keeping in mind that this DNA matched DNA previously discovered in a swab of blood taken from JBR's inside crotch area.

Its pretty damning. PR didn't write the note, instead the DNA owner is the killer.

Holdontoyourhat,

Well I'm glad you concede that the Skin Shedding Model is nice fiction this must mean you have no basis other than your own judgement to decide what is more or less probable.

I am not debating the existence of the touch-dna, I accept it was found on both the longjohns and her underwear. Disregarding the marker count, if you match the touch-dna to some suspect then that person becomes prime-suspect in the JonBenet homicide.

Where I take issue is the use of the term DNA to cover both semen-dna and touch-dna which as you know only semen-dna can conclusively place a suspect at the crime-scene. Touch-dna only means the person may have been there.

Hopefully this makes sense since nowadays even semen-dna can wilfully be placed at the scene of a crime, but in the JonBenet homicide there is no semen-dna.

It would be helpful in all your future posts to distinguish between touch-dna and semen-dna.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Nobody knows a helper handled the longjohns. However, everybody knows a criminal handled the longjohns. There's a difference here, and the difference is huge. Don't you get it? Sometimes RDI throws stuff at the wall, just to see what'll stick.

Holdontoyourhat,

everybody knows a criminal handled the longjohns.

100% incorrect. Because its touch-dna you can only infer that touch-dna has been transferred from an unknown and unmatched person, either by a third party or directly. The latter is only conclusive when semen-dna is present.

The person you describe as a criminal may in fact be a 7-year old boy.

.

 

[UKGuy]

we don't know how many times JB wore the long johns and underwear.It's the Ramsey's that said JB would ask anyone for help when going to the bathroom.It's PR that said those pantie's were "fair game" and we don't know how many times they were worn and not washed.JB was not given a bath that day either...

claudicici,

There are two explanations for the touch-dna, one is the toilet helper and the other is an external Ramsey accomplice e.g. someone who attended the crime-scene assisting in the coverup, but played no part in the death of JonBenet.

So that is three explanations for the touch-dna, not one e.g.

1. Toilet helper

2. Ramsey accomplice

3. Intruder


Its difficult to see how the IDI can claim an intruder was present when you have multiple choices of causation?

.

 

[MurriFlower]

claudicici,
There are two explanations for the touch-dna, one is the toilet helper and the other is an external Ramsey accomplice e.g. someone who attended the crime-scene assisting in the coverup, but played no part in the death of JonBenet.

So that is three explanations for the touch-dna, not one e.g.

1. Toilet helper

2. Ramsey accomplice

3. Intruder


Its difficult to see how the IDI can claim an intruder was present when you have multiple choices of causation?

The person you describe as a criminal may in fact be a 7-year old boy.


.

UkGuy I can see you have difficulties with numbers. There are two explanations. No there are three explanations. The person was a 7-year old boy?? The brother was 9yo.

Do you actually know what you are talking about??

What is it with touch DNA as opposed to any other DNA?? You seem to be of the belief that touch DNA is like feathers, fur or fibers -- it floats and flies, you transfer it from one place to another. This is all in your mind.

This touch DNA was put there by the person from whose skin the cells eminated. Semen DNA can be transferred in the same way. I assume you are a man and so you would be aware that semen can be transferred from hands to other objects/articles. DNA is also sourced in blood, hair, body fluids, skin. Anything that has a persons cells. Sticky stuff is good because it sticks the cells, but it isn't the only way DNA can be attached. What if the killer was a woman? Would you be looking only for semen DNA? Sorry, you probably won't find it.

You completely ignore the facts in favour of your fanciful ideas.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nobody knows a helper handled the longjohns. However, everybody knows a criminal handled the longjohns.

Holdontoyourhat,

100% incorrect.

Oh really?

Please explain then how JBR had acute injuries as described by the coroner. If no criminal handled the longjohns or the underwear, did JBR injure herself? Were her injuries accidental and unrelated to the staged strangulation?

You're stepping over yourself here.

Somebody both pulled up and pulled down the longjohns, and that somebody is a criminal. This is inarguable. Professional lab technicians wanted to know who the somebody is, thats why they did the test in the first place. The test result was postivie for a stranger's genetic material on both sides of the longjohns. PR is not mentioned in the lab result.

 

[claudicici]

...if there was an intruder I believe he wore gloves ,if it was him that was careless enough to leave touch DNA on the long johns and in the underwear he would have left it all over the crime scene IMO

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy I can see you have difficulties with numbers. There are two explanations. No there are three explanations. The person was a 7-year old boy?? The brother was 9yo.

Do you actually know what you are talking about??

What is it with touch DNA as opposed to any other DNA?? You seem to be of the belief that touch DNA is like feathers, fur or fibers -- it floats and flies, you transfer it from one place to another. This is all in your mind.

This touch DNA was put there by the person from whose skin the cells eminated. Semen DNA can be transferred in the same way. I assume you are a man and so you would be aware that semen can be transferred from hands to other objects/articles. DNA is also sourced in blood, hair, body fluids, skin. Anything that has a persons cells. Sticky stuff is good because it sticks the cells, but it isn't the only way DNA can be attached. What if the killer was a woman? Would you be looking only for semen DNA? Sorry, you probably won't find it.

You completely ignore the facts in favour of your fanciful ideas.

MurriFlower,

Do you actually know what you are talking about??

Obviously not.

What is it with touch DNA as opposed to any other DNA?? You seem to be of the belief that touch DNA is like feathers, fur or fibers -- it floats and flies, you transfer it from one place to another. This is all in your mind.

Well touch-dna as implied by its moniker touch-dna, to distinguish from other types of dna e.g. blood-dna, saliva-dna, or hair-dna, where the dna is the same but its carrier differs, generally touch-dna is skin-cells shed by the carrier as they go about their daily business. Or in a violent crime its shed as part of a physical struggle, forensic technicians always look for this first.

Now the IDI as promulgated by Lou Smit et-al suggests a male person sexually assaulted and then strangled JonBenet leaving with her size-6 underwear as a bizarre trophy. So thats where the semen-dna could come from. Its presence would make the JonBenet homicide a definite IDI. With only touch-dna, it does not follow that an intruder was present, he may have been, but there are other explanations for the touch-dna, and by excluding these and focussing in on the IDI you prejudice your own case.

QUOTE]
Semen DNA can be transferred in the same way.
[/QUOTE]
Semen-dna found on JonBenet's clothing would end any discussion about who did it, all that would be required would be a match. Semen-dna found deposited at a crime-scene generally has only one source and one motive. I have neve rheard of semen-dna being transferred in the same way as skin cells being randomly shed, since the carrier of the skin cells is unaware that they carry them. Where I reckon most people might be aware of semen on their person? Its a moot point anyway since if you argue for semen-dna transfer then you invalidate the IDI.

What if the killer was a woman? Would you be looking only for semen DNA? Sorry, you probably won't find it.

Thats the point semen-dna tells you something that touch-dna does not e.g. it places a male person at the scene of the crime. Touch-dna does not do this exclusively since the skin cells may have arrived from any third party.



.

 

[UKGuy]

...if there was an intruder I believe he wore gloves ,if it was him that was careless enough to leave touch DNA on the long johns and in the underwear he would have left it all over the crime scene IMO

claudicici,

Of course so where are the rest of his cells? Why are there none elsewhere? Why are there no matching hair samples, there usually are at crime-scenes?

Maybe the intruder never wore gloves because he wiped the flashlight clean, outside and including the battery. So why no skin cells anywhere else. Very strange, we need Columbo on this case.

Myabe he was a transvestite pedophile who copied Patsy's clothing and molested and killed JonBenet whilst wearing a matching red acrylic jacket?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Oh really?

Please explain then how JBR had acute injuries as described by the coroner. If no criminal handled the longjohns or the underwear, did JBR injure herself? Were her injuries accidental and unrelated to the staged strangulation?

You're stepping over yourself here.

Somebody both pulled up and pulled down the longjohns, and that somebody is a criminal. This is inarguable. Professional lab technicians wanted to know who the somebody is, thats why they did the test in the first place. The test result was postivie for a stranger's genetic material on both sides of the longjohns. PR is not mentioned in the lab result.

Holdontoyourhat,

The person's touch-dna discovered on JonBenet's need not belong to the person who killed JonBenet.

The touch-dna may belong to an eight-year old boy, it may belong to a stranger whom the killer shook hands with on the night of her death.

You cannot know if the person who killed JonBenet has dna matching the touch-dna!

Thats why you cannot label the owner of the touch-dna as a criminal.

As I will continue to state semen-dna would give you a good basis for an IDI. Touch-dna does not.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You cannot know if the person who killed JonBenet has dna matching the touch-dna!

I can be of that opinion. But again you're missing the whole point:

Everybody knows a criminal both lowered and raised JBR's longjohns.

You said this is completely incorrect and yet Clauducci correctly points out that the criminal could've been wearing gloves. Others have pointed out that PR/JR were the criminals but could've been unwitting hosts to stranger skin cells. These are possibilities (maybe?) but are vastly more remote. See what I mean? There's a criminal here, and the criminal both raised and lowered the longjohns. That is correct but you posted it was incorrect. Do you understand it better now?

The fact that skin cells were found in enough quantities in two different areas to produce a DNA profile suggests no gloves. The fact that PR/JR DNA was not a result of the test on either side of the longjohn waistband suggests they didn't carry the skin cells there.

 

[claudicici]

...but where is PR's DNA? ...she admittedly put JB into these long johns. Regrettably she did not remember what underwear her baby girl was wearing.If my daughter would have been wearing the size 12 pair that I bought for someone else ,I would have remembered,if my daughter would not have worn underwear at all,I would have remembered.It's just odd to me that PR claims to have put the longjohns on JB but does not remember what underwear or even if she was wearing underwear....

....I think one thing we all can agree on is that it's extremely important to determine who's DNA is on the longjohns and the underwear and under JB's fingernails.
Unfortunately so much time has passed and the possibilities are so endless I doubt this search will solve the case.
I do believe the case can still be solved.IMO there's still people around that know more about this than they are saying (JR,the White's ,BR......)