1008 users online (203 members and 805 guests)  


Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Unknown DNA found in 3 places, 2 articles clothing more likely

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • I"m RDI, to have been deposited by intruder than innocent transfer

    1 9.09%
  • I"m RDI, innocent transfer more likely

    7 63.64%
  • I"m JIDI, to have been deposited by intruder than innocent transfer

    3 27.27%
  • I"m JIDI, innocent transfer more likely

    0 0%

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 126
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015

    Any DNA experts agree w/RDI that transfer is more likely than intruder?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    First of all, RDI doesn't HAVE "spin" theories. I'm glad we got that straight.

    Second of all, there's a LOT more than RDI theories that link her to it! As for McM's analysis being a problem for that, considering that he was never part of the investigation and that he's never been mentioned by any of the Rs or their minions (people who never hesitate to shout innocence from the nearest available mountaintop), I take it with a grain of salt.


    ]
    I've provided other RDI spin theories, such as that the RN is the longest in history (it isn't) or that it has a motherly tone, or that PR somehow acted unreasonably after reading the RN and calling LE and then friends.

    While I am aware of the theoretical possibility that DNA could be the result of some kind of 3-way innocent transfer between JB and another male (which involves touching her sides of her pants and crouch) the amount of DNA thus transferred would be very small, quite possibily undetectable. Even if it were theoretically possible (A Han Solo One in a Million) it strikes me as much less likely than the official explanation given, namely, an intruder pulled down her pants and performed oral sex on her, where the saliva mixed with her blood from her vagina.

    When I speak of the RDI spin team, it is that the remote possibility of an innocent explanation is while possible, a more likely explanation than the probable and accepted explanation of an intruder and a sexual assault. The more probable explanation benefits from the plain fact that such an assault would gurantee the presence of his DNA on JB, whereas some kind of touch-transfer would not gurantee such quantity. To suggest that innocent transfer is more likely or more sure way of ensuring DNA detection, sounds like an RDI spin theory.

    Are there any forensic DNA experts who thinks that the RDI spin on DNA is what most probable explanation of the presence of DNA? In terms of odds, while I don't have exact numbers, to illustrate what I am arguing, if JB touched a male friend, there's a 30% chance his skin DNA would transfer to her skin, but then a 1% chance she'll touch her crouch, and enough skin cell DNA from friend transfer there, where it would mix w/blood from PR-staging, and 0.1% chance enough skin cells remaining for her sides of her pants. If an Intruder were to assault JB, there's a near 100% chance that DNA from his saliva would transfer to JB's pubic area, and near 100% chance that DNA would mix w/her blood, and 95% chance enough of his skin cells DNA would transfer to the sides of her pants. With these kinds of numbers and odds, it is sheer spin-doctoring to suggest that innocent transfer from JB is more likely than intruder.

    BTW A JIDI is justice is in IDI. Pronounced Jedi. Symbol is green or blue lightsaber. Forensics-sensitive.



    I've got no idea why RST don't cite McM, but I'm a JIDI. You'd have to ask them. Honestly SD, if the RST DID cite McM, would you put your credibility in what any RST 'expert' (ie John Douglass, FBI profiler, Lou Smit) says? Since the RST do NOT cite McM (perhaps the R's did not pay McM to do his case study?) you now claim that RST failure to trumpet him somehow undermines his credibility? Isn't that spin-doctoring?


    Since you've not read McM you don't know the power of the Dark Side. Specifically, you've not shown that he needs to be part of the original investigation to draw a valid conclusion. Until you do so, you're spinning his conclusion in a way that makes science and statistics appear invalid. Let's not forget why we are here, to bring justice to JB. What this means is using every available scientifically valid investigative tool to bear. McM foresnic linguistics and DNA are two scientifically valid tools that helps us accurately reconstruct the last night of JB's life.

    DNA and forensic linguistics and trace fiber evidence are the weapons of the JIDI knights, not clumsy or random like a psychological profile, elegant tools from a more civilized time. For over a thousand generations, the JIDI knights have been the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Investigation. Before the spin times. Before the RDIST. Darth who was a pupil of mine before he turned to spin, helped the RDIST hunt down and destroy the JIDI knights. Darth was seduced by the dark side of spin. Forensics is what gives the JIDI his power. It is the foundation that brings all the elements of crime together and binds justice in society together.
    Last edited by voynich; 09-15-2009 at 01:23 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    The best example of RDI spin that I can think of, is when it was discussed YEARS later that PR spelled 'advize' while the RN author spelled it correctly. Occam's Razor and prima facie both suggested the RN author and PR would then be two different people. Instead, RDI spun that into 'PR deliberately misspelled words to mislead investigators' within about 15 seconds of hearing about the misspelling.

    Fastest spin in the west.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    The best example of RDI spin that I can think of, is when it was discussed YEARS later that PR spelled 'advize' while the RN author spelled it correctly. Occam's Razor and prima facie both suggested the RN author and PR would then be two different people. Instead, RDI spun that into 'PR deliberately misspelled words to mislead investigators' within about 15 seconds of hearing about the misspelling.

    Fastest spin in the west.
    The professor will show you the true meaning of the Forensics. He actually uncatalogued several others (i.e pickup v.s pick-up vs pick up, countermeasure counter measure counter-measure) and the significance of mispelling advise as advize can be understood (along with other stylistic choices PR made) only in terms of forensic linguistics and the discipline's concept of the idiolect, the nature of language production and acquisition.
    Last edited by voynich; 09-15-2009 at 01:01 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    I am RDI and I rather believe the R's had an accomplice in the cover -up than that it was some innocent transfer.
    And yes there are lots of DNA experts that say it could have been innocent transfer but I guess I won't waste my time to post their opinions and stuff ,who's really interested anyway?
    The rice is already cooked...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I am RDI and I rather believe the R's had an accomplice in the cover -up than that it was some innocent transfer.
    And yes there are lots of DNA experts that say it could have been innocent transfer but I guess I won't waste my time to post their opinions and stuff ,who's really interested anyway?
    Could have been does not mean "the more likely explanation"

    Could have been
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LzGss9QGAk"]YouTube - Tiffany Could've Been[/ame]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Oh I wish there was an intruder and I so pray that there will be a trial.It would be the joke of the century, "Oj SImpson trial" season 2 & some pathetic DA whining and begging the jury for a G verdict.Hundreds of experts making money out of it,turning science into a mockery.This forum is such a good example of how a trial in this case will look like,makes me wonder if I really wanna see it solved.

    You always seem to forget the DNA in the OJ case.And WHAT DNA evidence they had!But sometimes DNA really doesn't matter,how amazing is that
    The rice is already cooked...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    What's the point in having some things that favors your side if you can't or you're not interested in USING them.

    What's the point in having a weapon if you can't use it.......except being arrogant about OWNING it.Let's see what the brave officials will do about it when it's the right time.
    Last edited by madeleine; 09-15-2009 at 07:12 AM.
    The rice is already cooked...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Bla,bla,bla........the Dna belongs to the killer....bla,bla,bla,....the writing is Patsy's.....

    SO WHAT?Is this a contest or something.

    Did any of this help the case so far?Nope.
    The rice is already cooked...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    The professor will show you the true meaning of the Forensics. He actually uncatalogued several others (i.e pickup v.s pick-up vs pick up, countermeasure counter measure counter-measure) and the significance of mispelling advise as advize can be understood (along with other stylistic choices PR made) only in terms of forensic linguistics and the discipline's concept of the idiolect, the nature of language production and acquisition.

    Did he have the actually RN or handwritting from PR...Or just like us getting the info from the computer...Did the LE or the R's lawyers give him these samples cause they sought him out...
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravyn View Post
    Did he have the actually RN or handwritting from PR...Or just like us getting the info from the computer...Did the LE or the R's lawyers give him these samples cause they sought him out...
    Yep like that guy who said those are 100% stun gun marks just from looking at the autopsy photos and then he said (duh) you really can't tell from a photo.
    The rice is already cooked...


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    May 23, 2001 Fox News Report (Part 3) - McKinley, Lou Smit, Doberson, Henry, Lee

    Lou Smit: If a stun gun was used on JonBenet it's very likely it's not the parents.

    Michael Dobersen: Everything is consistent with a stun gun

    Carol McKinley: Forensic scientist Michael Dobersen never saw the body but worked from these autopsy photos and experiments with anesthetized pigs. But coroner John Meyer's autopsy reports says the marks are abrasions not electrical burns.

    Henry Lee: The best person to make such an interpretation is the medical examiner. Dr Meyer

    Carol McKinley: The one who saw the body

    Henry Lee: Who saw the body. We only sees a picture

    Carol McKinley: We have to believe him?

    Henry Lee: We, it Dr Meyer I have to believe him
    The rice is already cooked...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Talking about SPIN TEAMS

    One of the best examples ever:

    Apr 30, 2001 NBC Today Show (Part 1) - Smit: An intruder killed JonBenet

    Smit: “You know Katie it was the second day I was on the case. The very first photograph that I’d seen of that basement window(THE PHOTGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN AFTER JR "PLAYED" WITH IT-THE WINDOW- HOW MANY TIMES?) - the window was wide open. And I said ‘Wait a minute take a look at that.’ That was one of the light bulbs that went off, and one of the red flags that I seen.”
    The rice is already cooked...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I've provided other RDI spin theories, such as that the RN is the longest in history (it isn't) or that it has a motherly tone, or that PR somehow acted unreasonably after reading the RN and calling LE and then friends.
    Ah. Then I suggest you be careful. By that I mean it might be helpful to remember that some of those you list (the motherly tone one specifically) were NOT thought up by RDIs on the Internet, but by those government agents HOTYH likes to drone on about.

    While I am aware of the theoretical possibility that DNA could be the result of some kind of 3-way innocent transfer between JB and another male (which involves touching her sides of her pants and crouch) the amount of DNA thus transferred would be very small, quite possibily undetectable.
    1) it wouldn't even have involve a male directly. JB could have done it herself.

    2) As for not being detectable, Bill O'Reilly was talking about this case with a criminologist from the FBI. She said that issue with DNA is the exact OPPOSITE: that as the tests get more and more advanced and more and more sensitive, they're MORE likely to detect DNA that is not relevant to the cases under investigation. A professional said that, not me. It's the truth, or may I be struck dead.

    Even if it were theoretically possible (A Han Solo One in a Million) it strikes me as much less likely than the official explanation given, namely, an intruder pulled down her pants and performed oral sex on her, where the saliva mixed with her blood from her vagina.
    If they could say that it WAS saliva. Problem is, they can't. They don't know WHAT it is.

    When I speak of the RDI spin team, it is that the remote possibility of an innocent explanation is while possible, a more likely explanation than the probable and accepted explanation of an intruder and a sexual assault. The more probable explanation benefits from the plain fact that such an assault would guarantee the presence of his DNA on JB, whereas some kind of touch-transfer would not guarantee such quantity.
    I'm glad you phrased it that way, for several reasons:

    1) "accepted explanation of an intruder and a sexual assault." Well, from where I stand, that's kind of the problem: it was assumed that there WAS an intruder and that there WAS a legitimate sexual assault to begin with. As I've explained before (a FAT lot of good it's done me!), they had the conclusion FIRST. Now, you think about that, and think about all the times that members of the RST itself (I'm not even talking about the internet IDIs) have attacked the RDI side for doing that (even when they DIDN'T do it). Mm, mm, mm.

    2) "the plain fact that such an assault would guarantee the presence of his DNA on JB," Aside from the OTHER things it would guarantee that weren't there (again, according to those govt agents HOTYH talks about), wouldn't you say that it would guarantee a hell of a lot more of it?

    Which leads me to 3) "whereas some kind of touch-transfer would not guarantee such quantity" The problem here is that there wasn't a great quantity of DNA in the first place. In just about every area of transfer, the investigators had to use methods that were designed specifically to detect minute DNA quantities.

    Everybody still with me so far?

    To suggest that innocent transfer is more likely or more sure way of ensuring DNA detection, sounds like an RDI spin theory.
    I don't care what it SOUNDS like.

    Are there any forensic DNA experts who thinks that the RDI spin on DNA is what most probable explanation of the presence of DNA?
    There are only two I'm aware of. One is Cyril Wecht. The other one is someone Mary McAuliffe supposedly spoke to. But there may be others. When this case was turned back over the police in February, Clint Van Zandt and Craig Silverman mentioned how there was debate about the DNA findings even now. But I couldn't say what they meant specifically.

    In terms of odds, while I don't have exact numbers, to illustrate what I am arguing, if JB touched a male friend, there's a 30% chance his skin DNA would transfer to her skin, but then a 1% chance she'll touch her crotch, and enough skin cell DNA from friend transfer there, where it would mix w/blood from PR-staging, and 0.1% chance enough skin cells remaining for her sides of her pants. If an Intruder were to assault JB, there's a near 100% chance that DNA from his saliva would transfer to JB's pubic area, and near 100% chance that DNA would mix w/her blood, and 95% chance enough of his skin cells DNA would transfer to the sides of her pants. With these kinds of numbers and odds, it is sheer spin-doctoring to suggest that innocent transfer from JB is more likely than intruder.
    Like you say, friend: you don't have exact numbers.

    I've got no idea why RST don't cite McM, but I'm a JIDI. You'd have to ask them.
    I'd sooner take dancing lessons in a minefield.

    Honestly SD, if the RST DID cite McM, would you put your credibility in what any RST 'expert' (ie John Douglass, FBI profiler, Lou Smit) says?
    I guess it depends. And I mean that. It's not a question of obstinacy as you seem to be making it out to be, at least not as far as I go.

    You mention Douglas and Smit, but you seem to have no real idea of why RDI holds them in such low regard. It's NOT because they're IDI. It's because they destroyed their OWN credibility because of HOW they went about it! Because their EGOS were more important than justice. They got on the "everybody's wrong but me" express and would not budge. And that's NOT just my opinion, not on your life. A lot of people, including the police and other FBI agents have said the same thing.

    Since the RST do NOT cite McM (perhaps the R's did not pay McM to do his case study?) you now claim that RST failure to trumpet him somehow undermines his credibility? Isn't that spin-doctoring?
    Don't put words in my mouth, voynich. The RST has routinely trashed anyone from outside the case who offers an opinion. You tell me: what does this sudden reversal on that position seem like?

    Since you've not read McM you don't know the power of the Dark Side. Specifically, you've not shown that he needs to be part of the original investigation to draw a valid conclusion. Until you do so, you're spinning his conclusion in a way that makes science and statistics appear invalid.
    I'm not spinning ANYTHING one way or another. You asked me for an honest opinion and I gave it to you straight out. That's it.

    Let's not forget why we are here, to bring justice to JB.
    Damn right!

    What this means is using every available scientifically valid investigative tool to bear. McM forensic linguistics and DNA are two scientifically valid tools that helps us accurately reconstruct the last night of JB's life.
    Maybe so. But there are other investigative tools as well. I'm just saying don't forget.

    Darth who was a pupil of mine before he turned to spin, helped the RDIST hunt down and destroy the JIDI knights.
    I have not yet begun to fight!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Yep like that guy who said those are 100% stun gun marks just from looking at the autopsy photos and then he said (duh) you really can't tell from a photo.
    I KNEW I was forgetting something!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I've provided other RDI spin theories, such as that the RN is the longest in history (it isn't) or that it has a motherly tone, or that PR somehow acted unreasonably after reading the RN and calling LE and then friends.

    While I am aware of the theoretical possibility that DNA could be the result of some kind of 3-way innocent transfer between JB and another male (which involves touching her sides of her pants and crouch) the amount of DNA thus transferred would be very small, quite possibily undetectable. Even if it were theoretically possible (A Han Solo One in a Million) it strikes me as much less likely than the official explanation given, namely, an intruder pulled down her pants and performed oral sex on her, where the saliva mixed with her blood from her vagina.

    When I speak of the RDI spin team, it is that the remote possibility of an innocent explanation is while possible, a more likely explanation than the probable and accepted explanation of an intruder and a sexual assault. The more probable explanation benefits from the plain fact that such an assault would gurantee the presence of his DNA on JB, whereas some kind of touch-transfer would not gurantee such quantity. To suggest that innocent transfer is more likely or more sure way of ensuring DNA detection, sounds like an RDI spin theory.

    Are there any forensic DNA experts who thinks that the RDI spin on DNA is what most probable explanation of the presence of DNA? In terms of odds, while I don't have exact numbers, to illustrate what I am arguing, if JB touched a male friend, there's a 30% chance his skin DNA would transfer to her skin, but then a 1% chance she'll touch her crouch, and enough skin cell DNA from friend transfer there, where it would mix w/blood from PR-staging, and 0.1% chance enough skin cells remaining for her sides of her pants. If an Intruder were to assault JB, there's a near 100% chance that DNA from his saliva would transfer to JB's pubic area, and near 100% chance that DNA would mix w/her blood, and 95% chance enough of his skin cells DNA would transfer to the sides of her pants. With these kinds of numbers and odds, it is sheer spin-doctoring to suggest that innocent transfer from JB is more likely than intruder.

    BTW A JIDI is justice is in IDI. Pronounced Jedi. Symbol is green or blue lightsaber. Forensics-sensitive.



    I've got no idea why RST don't cite McM, but I'm a JIDI. You'd have to ask them. Honestly SD, if the RST DID cite McM, would you put your credibility in what any RST 'expert' (ie John Douglass, FBI profiler, Lou Smit) says? Since the RST do NOT cite McM (perhaps the R's did not pay McM to do his case study?) you now claim that RST failure to trumpet him somehow undermines his credibility? Isn't that spin-doctoring?


    Since you've not read McM you don't know the power of the Dark Side. Specifically, you've not shown that he needs to be part of the original investigation to draw a valid conclusion. Until you do so, you're spinning his conclusion in a way that makes science and statistics appear invalid. Let's not forget why we are here, to bring justice to JB. What this means is using every available scientifically valid investigative tool to bear. McM foresnic linguistics and DNA are two scientifically valid tools that helps us accurately reconstruct the last night of JB's life.

    DNA and forensic linguistics and trace fiber evidence are the weapons of the JIDI knights, not clumsy or random like a psychological profile, elegant tools from a more civilized time. For over a thousand generations, the JIDI knights have been the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Investigation. Before the spin times. Before the RDIST. Darth who was a pupil of mine before he turned to spin, helped the RDIST hunt down and destroy the JIDI knights. Darth was seduced by the dark side of spin. Forensics is what gives the JIDI his power. It is the foundation that brings all the elements of crime together and binds justice in society together.


    Unfortunately, I can also guarantee you that much more testing was done that would probably lock up this whole topic and force us to move on. But LE is not going to give that part up to us.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Transfer of Raven from Jail to Prison
    By terminatrixator in forum Janet Christiansen Abaroa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-09-2014, 09:47 PM
  2. Replies: 138
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 09:41 PM
  3. The Animal Hair & Transfer
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 06-17-2006, 05:58 AM
  4. Transfer to zoo goes really badly for Bubba the lobster
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-14-2005, 09:21 AM