Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[nobull]

Tertiary transfer isn't difficult to understand at all. Dandruff is a great example of skin cells that can be deposited in a tertiary manner. Dandruff man (D) hugs A, depositing dandruff on A. A hugs B again transferring the skin cells.

BTW, when you look up into a window that has a beam of light shining through, what do you think those "dust" particles are?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Tertiary transfer isn't difficult to understand at all. Dandruff is a great example of skin cells that can be deposited in a tertiary manner. Dandruff man (D) hugs A, depositing dandruff on A. A hugs B again transferring the skin cells.

BTW, when you look up into a window that has a beam of light shining through, what do you think those "dust" particles are?

Uh, dust?


----------------------


It seems you're missing the whole point of "Touch DNA" which implies primary transfer.

According to you, we are supposed to believe Touch DNA testing its just a scraping or taping method of collecting dust that could've come in thru the window? The expression "Touch" then becomes a bit pretentious, doesn't it?

"Touch DNA" is performed by testing areas typically touched, and that skin cell DNA discovered there in an amount that would satisfy a threshold amount that is needed to create a profile. This amount would very likely not be deposited there by random, secondary, or tertiary transfer.

I suggest the Bode intruoduction to Touch DNA testing website, where they make NO mention of secondary or tertiary transfer. "When someone touches something..." sounds like primary transfer to me.

Better luck next time?

 

[cynic]

It seems you're missing the whole point of "Touch DNA" which implies primary transfer.

The point of touch DNA is touch, and the transfer of skin cells from that touch.
The question is whose skin cells are you transferring? You seem to be implying that all contact transfers only the “owners” skin cells. Immediately after you have washed your hands, that may be true, it is not true for the better part of the day living in the real world.
You have no difficulty envisioning any number of innocent transfer mechanisms for the fiber evidence, but you seem to be willing to fight to the death when it comes to any innocent explanation for the DNA evidence.
All of a sudden, there is but one explanation – primary transfer from an intruder.
This is getting a bit tedious, quite frankly.
Secondary transfer as well as other possibilities can account for the DNA evidence that has been found in this and any other case involving skin cell based DNA.
Transfer of skin cells other than through primary transfer is an absolute fact.
Here, once again, are some of the many studies and references regarding this fact.

Odessa J. Wozniak
OSP Forensic Scientist
The transfer of one’s DNA through brief contact with an object is known as touch DNA.
In rare circumstances, touch DNA can provide invaluable information which would otherwise not have been discovered. In most circumstances, touch DNA does not provide invaluable information. In fact, the use of touch DNA can be a Pandora’s Box of sorts.
The shortcomings of touch DNA revolve around the fact that the process amplifies very small amounts of DNA, the test cannot determine when the DNA was deposited, and often mixtures are obtained which make the interpretation of the results very complicated.
Touch DNA is defined as “limited casual contact by an individual with a surface or material.” As the name implies, “touch” DNA is focused primarily on items of which a person would have touched, such as cigarette lighters, keys, doorhandles, gun grips, triggers, light switches, drawer handles, countertops, gear shift knobs, steering wheels, etc. Not all people shed the same amount of DNA containing cells. Because there are differences in the amount of DNA exchanged during limited casual contact, some people may leave more DNA on an object, while others will leave very little or none. In addition, because of secondary transfer of DNA, it is also possible to obtain a DNA profile from a person who did not touch the object. Secondary transfer of DNA is when one person “picks-up” another person’s DNA simply by handling an object the other person touched (or touching that person), and then deposits that other person’s DNA onto another object.
A timeline of when DNA was deposited on an object is impossible to deduce from a profile.
DNA results merely tell a person that the DNA is present, and can do nothing to determine if the DNA was deposited yesterday or years ago.
Because many of the objects suitable for touch DNA are also objects that are frequently handled by more than one person, profile results are usually mixtures. Mixtures can be extremely complicated or impossible to sort. To an analyst, separating one profile from a mixture would be like a person trying to determine the lyrics of a song when there are three different songs playing at the same time.
http://www.ospoa.com/tnoct09.pdf

And

We show that an individual’s genetic profile can now also be generated from swabs taken from objects touched by hands, providing a new tool for crime scene investigations. Our findings also demonstrate the need for caution when handling exhibits and when interpreting results.
We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer)
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf

And

From an article titled: “The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces”
The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification.
Forensic International Congress Series, Volume 1261, April 2004, Pages 53-55
C. Peel and P. Gill

And

DNA Transfer and Assessment of a Profile:
All studies carried out on DNA fingerprints from fingerprints have dealt with secondary transfer of DNA, a condition in which one individual transfers DNA left by another person, on hands or objects (skin to skin to object, or skin to object to skin). Tertiary transfer has also been described when the DNA lost on one object is transferred by a poor shedder to a different object (skin to object to skin to object).
The impact of these phenomena in the field of forensics is a serious problem, because their variable contributions in fingerprint formation can give, each time, mixed or poorly interpretable profiles or profiles left by individuals not involved in the crime scene. In a series of experiments using a model of manual strangulation, Rutty recently observed the persistence of contamination from offender fingers for at least ten days after the contact.
Forensic Sci, May 2003, Vol. 48, No. 3
Federica Alessandrini, B.Sc.; Monia Cecati, B.Sc.; Mauro Pesaresi, M.D.; Chiara Turchi, B.Sc.; Flavia Carle, Ph.D.; and Adriano Tagliabracci, M.D.

And

Possible problems with DNA
Below are some potential problems with the use of DNA evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.
Adventitious or secondary transfer
Unlike deliberate contamination, adventitious (or secondary) transfer describes the transmission of forensic material from a person who may not be associated with a crime, to the victim or crime scene, through ordinary interactions like talking, sneezing or shedding hair. We discussed adventitious transfer in more detail above, and described a case where the defendant argued that his DNA was found on the deceased’s bra as a result of secondary transfer and not because he was involved in the offence.
As the sensitivity of DNA analysis continues to increase, it becomes more important to consider the possibility of adventitious transfer.
http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/Other%20Reports/dna%20report%206.pdf

And

This from a forensics lab:
Why have this evidence checked?

Although the statistics regularly applied to DNA can appear very strong evidence, this does not necessarily mean that direct contact has occurred. There are various other aspects that should be investigated, such as the possibility of secondary transfer, for example via another person, whether any contamination may have occurred, or the chance of the DNA being deposited by indirect contact, such as coughing over an item.
http://www.forensic-science.uk.com/bio.htm

I suggest the Bode introduction to Touch DNA testing website, where they make NO mention of secondary or tertiary transfer. "When someone touches something..." sounds like primary transfer to me.

Just because it wasn’t mentioned by Bode on their webpage, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that they are not aware of the issue.

Fifth Annual BODE EAST COAST ADVANCED DNA TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
Sponsored by: The Bode Technology Group, Inc.
May 30 – June 2, 2006

1:00pm-1:30pm
The Recovery of DNA Deposited on Weapons through Secondary Transfer
Howard Baum, New York Office of Chief Medical Examiner
http://www.bodetech.com/documents/South_Seas_Brochure.pdf

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, its completely irrelevant.

Believe me, HOTYH: I can sympathize. There was a time I didn't want to grasp the implications either.

Just because JR was surprised when LE 'believed' his fibers were in her underwear, doesn't mean he should've been surprised by it.

Obviously you're not familiar with the phrase "a hit dog barks."

They were just taking advantage of his ignorance as to fiber evidence, and making him look like a fool.

He didn't need their help for that! (Just be glad he wasn't dealing with me!)

Secondary transfer of fibers, fibers that are most likely to be on JBR in the first place, simply isn't remarkable.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: For the 1000th time I'm telling you, everything goes against it being a secondary transfer.

1) PR had two full years to consult with her lawyers and come up with a story to explain it, and all she can come up with only digs her deeper because it would require a fundamental shift in the laws of physics. I'll let Wendy Murphy explain it:

"For Patsy's fibers to transfer to the items would require flat-out magic, because three of the items were never brought upstairs until they were collected by investigators. Those fibers would have to have floated downstairs, around a corner and down a hallway."

2) Worse, even if PR HAD kept her mouth shut, it wouldn't do much good because of where the fibers ended up. I think madeleine explained it best when she said that it would make no difference if those fibers were on JB's clothes or body. Except they WEREN'T. They were on the tape, which IDI claims was not in the house; they were tied INTO (not ON, INTO) the knots of a cord which IDI claims was not in the house; they were on a blanket which had been pulled out of the dryer; and they were in a paintbox which PR claims she never went near while in those clothes. It doesn't take a big leap of imagination to figure out how they got there!

3) As for JR's fibers, that doesn't take a big leap, either. In fact, it allows me to use your old stand-by, HOTYH: prima facie. Prima facie tells me that those fibers ended up there when the sexual assault staging was done and his sleeve scuffed against her waistband.

I'd call those points pretty relevant!

Everybody getting this, or am I just talking to myself?

 

[BBB167893]

There's another problem here.
We KNOW when the parental fibers were deposited because they told us with their own mouths.They wore those clothes the evening of the murder and PR the morning after as well.
We CAN'T know when the DNA was deposited though.If it was found mixed with her blood that doesn';t mean it landed there when the blood did.That simple.

Couldn't have summarized it better myself.

 

[BBB167893]

Uh oh. "Touch DNA" that can come from secondary and teritary transfer?? Sounds like an oxymoron, huh? Why do they call it "Touch DNA" if its only skin cell DNA? Seems if you're right, then they need to change the name to remove the 'Touch' expression if we can't assume it came from a touch.

Right or wrong?

Clever rhetorical flourish, HOTYH, but it doesn't change anything. It's still a method for testing DNA that is too minute to be detected by standard tests. So yeah, actually, you are right. They should change the name of it.

An intelligent juror never got the opportunity to do that because we are told there was not enough evidence for trial, or even an arrest

Look who we were told BY, HOTYH. All would become clear if you would do that. Many other prosecutors have gone to trial with a LOT less and won. Would you like to set all of those killers free? Good luck.

(food for thought, unless you're paranoid and believe they're all sold out or afraid of JR or LW).

You don't NEED to be paranoid or anything else of the kind to see that. What else would you call it? A DA's office which hadn't taken a case to trial in ten years vs. a law firm which owned half the state. And let's not forget what KIND of DAs we're talking about here. It's one thing to think like a defense attorney and shore up weak points in your case. It's another thing altogether to ACT like a defense attorney as if you were trying to find excuses not to take a case to trial because you haven't got enough faith in your own skills. That includes saying things like "so what if she wrote the note? It doesn't prove she killed her kid" and undercutting your own witnesses!

I didn't subtitle my book "How Wealth and Politics Won Over Truth and Justice" for nothing, you know!

 

[BBB167893]

According to RDI:

1. Parental fibers found on JBR are primary transfer fibers deposited during a crime, even though these fibers are consistent with the most likely fibers to be found on JBR besides her own...

AND

2.. Unknown male DNA found on JBR are secondary or tertiary transfer deposited innocently, even though this DNA can't be traced to anyone tested locally or in CODIS.

There is NO WAY that RDI can show either 1 OR 2 to be a fact, and yet RDI needs both 1 AND 2 to be fact.

There's no way IDI can show either NOT to be a fact, either.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe you can't make it thru a post without ad hominem?

If ML is subjected to ad hominem, I assure you she has EARNED every single word of it!

"Totality of evidence" is an abstract term that doesn't really represent anything. You've either got it or you don't.

Damn good thing 99% of prosecutors don't know that! Or there'd be an awful lot of guilty killers roaming free right now! Don't take my word for it, either. Do what I did: track down a proscutor who knows how to put just such a case together. It'll be one he** of an education!

1. JBR was previously abused
2. PR wrote the note
3. PR sweater fibers are knotted in the cord
4. JR shirt fibers are in the underwear
5. PR bought cord at the hardware store
6. JBR ate pineapple in the kitchen
7. JBR was only tied up in the basement
8. The RN was bogus
9. The unknown male DNA is innocent
10. PR used cord on paintings
11. PR used tape on stage or paintings
12. PR's sweater fibers were in the paint tote
13. JBR was near death when strangled
14. The note was written by a journalism major
15. Prosecutors are afraid of JR and LW
16. There is a case, it only needs a prosecutor
17. The 2nd ligature was only staging
18. JBR was also manually strangled
19. JBR hit her head on an object (not the other way around)
20. PR was angry that night

Wow! Here I spend two years on a book, and HOTYH ties it all up in 30 seconds. Do I feel like an idiot or what!

These are loosely referred to as if they are facts when not one is known to be fact.

Let's see what the people think.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's no way IDI can show either NOT to be a fact, either.

Thats not exactly true. It CAN be shown that the unknown male DNA arrived by primary contact that night, during a crime.

The male DNA was found mixed with blood, the mixing being an event that could only take place THAT NIGHT during a crime.

The same DNA found on either side of the waistband during Touch DNA testing corroborates the claim of events occuring THAT NIGHT. This combination of evidence crosses the threshold of what is required to show it as fact. It takes quite an imagination, or an ignorance, to place this male's DNA both in blood and on each side of the waistband innocently


And that is why JR got the letter, my friend.

 

[Ravyn]

But with the style,being long white thermal underpants why didn't ML checked more places, cause it seems that the intruder would had touch more than the waistband, and with the longjohns, if placed back on a dead child one would think,this would be more than just touching the waistband.....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Wow! Here I spend two years on a book, and HOTYH ties it all up in 30 seconds. Do I feel like an idiot or what!

I'm not asking you to feel like an idiot. Its not my fault if all of those RDI opinions haven't been corroborated.

For example, prior abuse may be an opinion shared by the rags for a while, but it was never corroborated or established as fact. You need to pile that up with some other #%$, claim the whole thing smells, and get one of your prosecutors who likes smelly things...

As for me, gee I think I'll write a book. But I'm going to ignore the mass of opinion, speculation, and hype. I'll start over and deal in the knowns.

 

[BBB167893]

Thats not exactly true. It CAN be shown that the unknown male DNA arrived by primary contact that night, during a crime.

I'm afraid not. Among many other problems, you have no one to match it to. You can't even prove that anyone else was there that night.

The male DNA was found mixed with blood, the mixing being an event that could only take place THAT NIGHT during a crime.

Save that for the tourists, okay? I know enough about DNA to know that there's no way DNA that degraded could be fresh, especially since the blood from JBR was fresh. Some day I'll teach you that "RDI" does not equal "stupid."

The same DNA found on either side of the waistband during Touch DNA testing corroborates the claim of events occuring THAT NIGHT.

It confirms that it got there at some point. Get back to me when they test a few other items.

This combination of evidence crosses the threshold of what is required to show it as fact.

I wish I could believe that.

I have a few combinations to a few of the items you mentioned as well. I wonder if you'd apply the same consideration. I doubt it.

It takes quite an imagination, or an ignorance, to place this male's DNA both in blood and on each side of the waistband innocently

Speaking from personal experience, I am neither ignorant nor do I have an overly active imagination.

And that is why JR got the letter, my friend.

I KNOW why he got the letter, and it makes me sick.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Save that for the tourists, okay? I know enough about DNA to know that there's no way DNA that degraded could be fresh, especially since the blood from JBR was fresh. Some day I'll teach you that "RDI" does not equal "stupid."

Uh, check the story because thats not how it went.

The degraded, unusable DNA they found was just that: degraded and unusable. Not entered into CODIS.

Later on, the FBI found some DNA that WASN'T degraded or unusable. This DNA was from a sample taken from blood from the assault. This sample was of sufficient quality (according to the FBI, yes the very same people in CASKU) to be entered into CODIS.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not asking you to feel like an idiot.

I know. I was being facetious.

Its not my fault if all of those RDI opinions haven't been corroborated.

THAT is a matter of opinion. Speaking purely for myself, they're as corroborated as I need.

For example, prior abuse may be an opinion shared by the rags for a while, but it was never corroborated or established as fact.

That's where we part company, HOTYH. If it had been only a rag story, I'd probably go along with you. But when the police consult eight separate experts and they all agree independently, that sounds pretty damn "corroborated" to me!

and get one of your prosecutors who likes smelly things...

I can honestly say I don't have the foggiest idea what you mean.

If by that you mean a competent, tough prosecutor who knows how to win cases, then, yeah. Because that's what I mean.

As for me, gee I think I'll write a book. But I'm going to ignore the mass of opinion, speculation, and hype. I'll start over and deal in the knowns.

You're going to write a two-page long book?

 

[BBB167893]

Uh, check the story because thats not how it went.

The degraded, unusable DNA they found was just that: degraded and unusable. Not entered into CODIS.

Later on, the FBI found some DNA that WASN'T degraded or unusable. This DNA was from a sample taken from blood from the assault. This sample was of sufficient quality (according to the FBI, yes the very same people in CASKU) to be entered into CODIS.

I DID check it. I may be young, but I wasn't born yesterday.

1) That "other" DNA you so blithely refer to WAS degraded, so much so that the tests could only produce 9-1/2 markers, not the 13 CODIS usually requires. And they had to amplify it just to get THAT much after almost ten years of advancements in DNA testing. As one of the experts that spoke to Dan Abrams said, the DNA did not improve; the testing methods did.

2) With that in mind, it helps to remember that it was submitted to CODIS on a recurrent basis rather than a permanent one, and even then because the Boulder DA's office high-pressured them into it.

3) There are sizable segments of the legal profession on both sides who will tell you that partial DNA profiles are a minefield. I'm sure cynic can come up with a few examples. He's not doing too bad so far.

Like I said, HOTYH: I've been at this too long to get tripped up.

If I may presume to offer some friendly advice, use a source OTHER than LW.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

THAT is a matter of opinion. Speaking purely for myself, they're as corroborated as I need.

I don't doubt that.

Speaking for myself, 100 'expert opinions' after-the-fact provides exactly zero corroboration.

A previous note in JBR's medical record on suspected abuse would be corroboration of abuse. A remark made by one person to another, on a professional level, prior to JBR's murder would be corroboration of abuse. Physical evidence found at the home that on its own indicated abuse would be corroboration of abuse.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

1) That "other" DNA you so blithely refer to WAS degraded, so much so that the tests could only produce 9-1/2 markers, not the 13 CODIS usually requires. And they had to amplify it just to get THAT much after almost ten years of advancements in DNA testing. As one of the experts that spoke to Dan Abrams said, the DNA did not improve; the testing methods did.

This isn't QUITE how the story broke.

The DNA mixed with blood was stand-alone DNA unwittingly held by BPD, discovered by FBI, and submitted to CODIS.

End of story.

 

[Ravyn]

TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.


Now this was the 1998 interview if not proven, why word it the way they did...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're going to write a two-page long book?

Just remember, you said that and not me!

 

[BBB167893]

I don't doubt that.

Just WHAT is that supposed to mean? I'm doing my best to be up-front about this, one man to another. Don't make me regret it.

Speaking for myself, 100 'expert opinions' after-the-fact provides exactly zero corroboration.

Then, as far as I'm concerned, we've got nothing to talk about.

A previous note in JBR's medical record on suspected abuse would be corroboration of abuse. A remark made by one person to another, on a professional level, prior to JBR's murder would be corroboration of abuse.

True. But HOTYH, you know as well as I do that in a lot of cases, we don't get that luxury.

Physical evidence found at the home that on its own indicated abuse would be corroboration of abuse.

If you could give me an example, I'd be grateful.