Skin cell transfer mode poll 2 of 3

Holdontoyourhat said:

Were the subject skin cells shed onto another object or person first, and then eventually transferred to JBR’s longjohns,

OR

were the subject skin cells shed directly by its owner onto JBR’s longjohns?

Click to expand...

UKGuy said:

Holdontoyourhat,

Nobody knows, and nobody can offer a balanced opinion since the touch-dna may have been deposited by either route.

And since the probability of either event cannot be computed nobody including you can claim to know otherwise.

An IDI based on touch-dna is nonsense!


.

Click to expand...

Holdontoyourhat said:

Of course its nonsense, if you don't understand or take into consideration the context!

Several RDI posters will avoid the context issue like the plague, while any serious discussion on forensic DNA analysis will note how investigators use context to locate and test for DNA. The fact that you place zero significance on DNA found in solution with JBR's blood, as well as matching DNA in two places on the longjohn waistband, an object known to have been handled by a criminal, says it all.

I'd suggest reading up on the context aspect, as it is clear you'r'e not including it in any of your discussions. The context issue is real, part of investigative work, and why JR got an exhoneration letter. Its not going away just because you don't acknowledge it exists.

Why doesn't RDI ever use a complete description of the DNA? Its as vague as possible. Please provide one post of yours that describes 'waistband DNA' or 'blood stain DNA'. I'm quite sure you'll refer to both simply as 'underwear DNA' to promote the factory worker idea.

Click to expand...