1363 users online (287 members and 1076 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News

View Poll Results: 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/64

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm an RDI and I agree

    0 0%
  • I'm an RDI and I disagree

    0 0%

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015

    The Return of the JIDI

    No post of mine would be complete without first a usual intro:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6_dxW4NpDU&feature=related"]YouTube - Obi-Wan Kenobi & Anakin Skywalker Vs Count Dooku Round 2[/ame]

    The old man represents old RDI spin theories based on CASKU, Steve Thomas, Hodges, and others. He gets his head cut off by the JIDI, much like what happens here.

    To provide the context of this discussion, is between me and "cynic"

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The only thing that Mary Lacy left out of the exoneration letter to the Ramseys was xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo.


    I say again:
    “Objects handled by many individuals all produced profiles with multiple alleles of varying intensity. To determine the effect of multiple handlers, we exchanged polypropylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3, 10 min each) with different genotypes. Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of previous holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the individual.
    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). Also, hands swabbed before and after a one-minute handshake revealed the transfer of DNA from one individual to another in one of the four hands tested. Thus genetic profiles from objects handled by several people or from minute blood stains on touched objects may be difficult to interpret.”
    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf
    re: CASKU

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The basis upon which their conclusion was made is as valid today as it was then.
    The totality of the case points to RDI.
    my reply:

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The basis upon which their conclusion was made is as valid today as it was then.
    The totality of the case points to RDI.
    The DA"s office has access to the primary evidence and

    "
    I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.



    The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.



    It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.



    DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.



    The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.



    Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.



    It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.

    For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology."

    Cynic provides what she believes will bolster the RDI case,

    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf

    According to the article, primary transfer of DNA ----

    "Initial tests showed that we could readily obtain correct genetic profiles from swabs taken directly from the palm of a hand (13 of 13). DNA yields varied from 2 to 150 ng (average 48.6 ng). Dry hands and those that had been washed recently tended to provide the least DNA."

    "Swabs of objects handled regularly by specific individuals all provided genetic typ- ings that matched the user."

    In other words, primary transfer results in a 100% transfer rate.

    So the intruder handling JB's panties and 2 places on her long johns would result in a 100% transfer.

    The odds then of a primary transfer of 3 different locations is
    1 * 1 * 1 = 100%.


    This is where it gets interesting -- the RDI claims of secondary transfer,

    "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).
    Also, hands swabbed before and after a one-minute handshake revealed the transfer of DNA from one individual to another in one of the four hands tested. Thus genetic profiles from objects handled by several people or from minute blood stains on touched objects may be difficult to interpret."

    At best, then for JB to have transferred the DNA to 3 different locations using secondary transfer is 1/4 for one location * 1/4 * 1/4 = 1.5% under laboratory conditions. 1/3% means that primary transfer is at least 33 times more likely to transfer to 3 different places than secondary transfer.

    Actually 3% is high, since it's clear that JB had come into contact with other family members, the Whites, and other individuals, "thus genetic profiles from objects handled by several people or from minute blood stains on touched objects may be difficult to interpret" making secondary transfer even less likely. Here the objects were immediately swabbed after a 1 minute handshake. JB was separated by many hours at least during which time she may have washed her hands or other ways of destroying DNA.


    Further destroying the RDI secondary transfer "Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of pre- vious holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the indi- vidual. 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).'

    In otherwords, if JB's foreign DNA is the result of secondary transfer, other previous secondary transfers, such as the Whites would likely be observed. "was usually present on the tube, that of pre- vious holders was also retrieved to varying extents. "

    Another way to think of it is that "DNA yields varied from 2 to 150 ng (average 48.6 ng). Dry hands and those that had been washed recently tended to provide the least DNA." In primary transfer average of 48.6ng would be transferred with dry hands providing the least. Secondary transfers only transfer at best a fraction of that, under ideal laboratory conditions, and only 1/4 of the time can it be detected.

    Other transfers would reduce this faction multiple fold. If JB touched a friend, then touched a bowl, then touched a wall, she'd be transferring away the initial DNA 48.6ng amount from her friend.

    In other words, a one time secondary transfer after a primary transfer to an object of an average of 48.6ng of DNA results in detection 25% of the time. This article does not specify the likelihood of successive secondary transfers which would be needed to explain the 3 locations. The article also clearly states that when a variety of objects were touched by multiple individuals, all their DNA's were recovered to various degrees. Only unknown intruder DNA was found on JB in 3 locations.


    To use the language of statistics:

    null hypothesis: DNA found on JB in 3 different locations is most likely due to secondary transfer
    alternative: DNA found on JB is most likely due to primary transfer of an intruder.

    We can reject the null hypothesis with greater than 95% confidence (2 bar) based on the low probability of secondary transfer 25% at best times this event being repeated in 3 locations, and the fact that secondary transfer DNA techniques does pick up other DNA profiles. At best, primary transfer is more than 64 times a likely explanation than secondary transfer in 3 different locations, hence the null hypothesis is rejected.

    This kind of analysis is grounds for the truthfulness of the statement "
    I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation." We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.

    As I challenged Cynic and Super & other RDI spin team, is there any reporter, any employee, or any blog, email, facebook, twitter, FOIA request, anyone, any detective resigning like Steve Thomas, who feels that Lacy did not truthfully report " Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory "


    Thanks Cynic!

    "My powers have grown double since we last met, Super!"


    The other thing to keep in mind for the purpose of primary transfer v.s secondary transfer is *where* the DNA was found, in primary transfer, if the perp touched JB's vagina and the sides of her longjohn there is a 100% transfer of his DNA to those areas. If that DNA is secondary DNA, then first JB would need to be contact with someone before the Whites, and at least a day before (as it is likely it could be washed away) and than only a 25% chance to transfer to another area. But the oddes of secondary transfer to those specific areas where they were found is 25% times the likely hood she would touch those areas times the likelihood enough DNA remains.

    The clip above, Count Dooku does a don moch "You have hate, you have anger, but you don't use it" and it backfires on Dooku, as it enrages Anakin to overpower him and defeat him. SuperDave once told me "you have evidence but you don't use it"

    Cynic was arguing with me over secondary v.s primary DNA transfer, and cited this paper
    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf

    to argue secondary, but the paper clearly states primary transfer DNA was recovered 100%, secondary only 25%, and secondary transfer also picks up other DNA profiles. Other DNA profiles, such as the Whites, were not found on JB even though she came in contact with them. It also gives specific numbers of how much DNA gets transferred in nano-gram amounts. In effect Cynic attempted to don moch me with this research paper on secondary transfer DNA, but it ends up showing that primary transfer is the most likely explanation!

    The last words SuperDave hears are "Kill his argument, do it. do it know. I shouldn't....do it...."
    Last edited by voynich; 10-13-2009 at 02:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    Legal experts who have followed the Ramsey case over the years disagreed over whether the prosecutor had botched the investigation by arresting Karr. But both critics and defenders of the district attorney said the dramatic and confusing events of recent days may make it more difficult for prosecutors to win a conviction if a more compelling suspect is found.


    Why keep going on with Lacy, she just made it impossible for even an intruder to be guilty of killing JonBenet and actually she hurt the RDI and IDI's here so who is spinning...
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    I think your lightsaber needs some new batteries there, friend. In order to prove that the DNA came from an intruder, you have to show that there WAS an intruder. That's proven to be a tall order. So tall in fact, that I had to change allegiances because it depended so much on "maybes" and "possibles."

    As for finding someone who said that Lacy wasn't truthful, it's not that so much. It's more a case where someone thinks what they say is true when the conclusion leaves much to be desired.

    Ravyn is right: IDIs should be more angry at Lacy than RDIs.

    "My powers have grown double since we last met, Super!"
    Good. Twice the pride, double the fall!

    The other thing to keep in mind for the purpose of primary transfer v.s secondary transfer is *where* the DNA was found, in primary transfer, if the perp touched JB's vagina and the sides of her longjohn there is a 100% transfer of his DNA to those areas. If that DNA is secondary DNA, then first JB would need to be contact with someone before the Whites, and at least a day before (as it is likely it could be washed away) and than only a 25% chance to transfer to another area. But the odds of secondary transfer to those specific areas where they were found is 25% times the likely hood she would touch those areas times the likelihood enough DNA remains.
    Even if what you say is true, it doesn't take into account a primary transfer from an innocent source. Say, one of the kids at the party. But that's for another time.

    Also, there was no DNA on JB's own body. That's always bothered me.

    The clip above, Count Dooku does a don moch "You have hate, you have anger, but you don't use it" and it backfires on Dooku, as it enrages Anakin to overpower him and defeat him. SuperDave once told me "you have evidence but you don't use it"
    Yes, I did tell you. I thought I could be as great a teacher as cynic. I was wrong.

    The last words SuperDave hears are "Kill his argument, do it. do it know. I shouldn't....do it...."
    If you want a situation where you can REALLY apply that one to, I suggest you check out my thread "No Honor Among Thieves."
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    Another way to think of it is that "DNA yields varied from 2 to 150 ng (average 48.6 ng). Dry hands and those that had been washed recently tended to provide the least DNA." In primary transfer average of 48.6ng would be transferred with dry hands providing the least. Secondary transfers only transfer at best a fraction of that, under ideal laboratory conditions, and only 1/4 of the time can it be detected.
    Other transfers would reduce this faction multiple fold. If JB touched a friend, then touched a bowl, then touched a wall, she'd be transferring away the initial DNA 48.6ng amount from her friend.
    In other words, a one time secondary transfer after a primary transfer to an object of an average of 48.6ng of DNA results in detection 25% of the time. This article does not specify the likelihood of successive secondary transfers which would be needed to explain the 3 locations. The article also clearly states that when a variety of objects were touched by multiple individuals, all their DNA's were recovered to various degrees. Only unknown intruder DNA was found on JB in 3 locations.
    As little as 0.25ng can yield a profile using standard 28 cycle STR, 0.1ng or even less can yield a profile using LCN testing procedures. (Bode said there was enough DNA for use with standard procedures). Feel free to do the math.

    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    Thanks Cynic! .
    You're welcome
    Last edited by cynic; 10-14-2009 at 12:38 AM. Reason: punctuation
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Even if what you say is true, it doesn't take into account a primary transfer from an innocent source. Say, one of the kids at the party.
    Quite right SD, this is one of many viable possibilities. I have recently considered the possibility of a DNA laden "used" washcloth or towel being the source as PR/JR was wiping various items and perhaps JBR "clean"
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I think your lightsaber needs some new batteries there, friend.

    Good. Twice the pride, double the fall!


    I thought I could be as great a teacher as cynic. I was wrong.
    "
    I've been expecting you SD-Won.

    LOL The circle is now complete, when I left you I was but the learner. Now I am the master.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    As little as 0.25ng can yield a profile using standard 28 cycle STR, 0.1ng or even less can yield a profile using LCN testing procedures. (Bode said there was enough DNA for use with standard procedures). Feel free to do the math.


    You're welcome
    DO you understand what the ramifications are if what you say is true, and
    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf

    is also true?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I think your lightsaber needs some new batteries there, friend. In order to prove that the DNA came from an intruder, you have to show that there WAS an intruder. That's proven to be a tall order. So tall in fact, that I had to change allegiances because it depended so much on "maybes" and "possibles."

    As for finding someone who said that Lacy wasn't truthful, it's not that so much. It's more a case where someone thinks what they say is true when the conclusion leaves much to be desired.

    Ravyn is right: IDIs should be more angry at Lacy than RDIs.



    Good. Twice the pride, double the fall!



    Even if what you say is true, it doesn't take into account a primary transfer from an innocent source. Say, one of the kids at the party. But that's for another time.

    Also, there was no DNA on JB's own body. That's always bothered me.



    Yes, I did tell you. I thought I could be as great a teacher as cynic. I was wrong.



    If you want a situation where you can REALLY apply that one to, I suggest you check out my thread "No Honor Among Thieves."
    your sith apprentice darth cynic linked
    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf



    now the cat's got out of the bag:

    Objects handled by many individuals all produced profiles with multiple alleles ofmultiple handlers, we exchanged poly- propylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3,
    10 min each) with different genotypes.
    Although the material left by the last holderwas usually present on the tube, that of pre- vious holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was

    in other words, if you want to explain primary transfer to those unique locations on JB (was she wearing the same longjohns??)

    other DNA would be found, using the link as a set of D&D rule guide.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    DO you understand what the ramifications are if what you say is true, and
    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf

    is also true?
    Yes, RDI.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Yes, RDI.
    try again.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    Can I ask a question here Det.Arndt said JR brought JonBenet up by holding her waist,now with doing this the DNA was found in the spot JR was holding now if he shook people's hands that day how would that read....
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Yes, RDI.
    http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf states


    premise 1

    "Also, hands swabbed before and after a one-minute handshake revealed the transfer of DNA from one individual to another in one of the four hands tested. "

    premise 2

    Initial tests showed that we could readily obtain correct genetic profiles from swabs taken directly from the palm of a hand (13 of 13). DNA yields varied from 2 to 150 ng (average 48.6 ng). Dry hands and those that had been washed recently tended to provide the least DNA.

    You may verify the statements I've re-typed from the pdf are correct.

    Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    As little as 0.25ng can yield a profile using standard 28 cycle STR, 0.1ng or even less can yield a profile using LCN testing procedures. (Bode said there was enough DNA for use with standard procedures). Feel free to do the math.


    Conclusion, 75% of secondary transfers do not transfer more than or equal to 0.25ng of DNA

    75% < 0.25ng
    25% >= 0.25ng

    Attempted transfers whether they adhere or not, also result in a loss of material. Take molten chocolate on your finger, and smear it on a wall. There you lost your chocolate.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I've been expecting you SD-Won.
    I am a creature of habit.

    LOL The circle is now complete, when I left you I was but the learner. Now I am the master.
    Only a master of spin, voynich.

    in other words, if you want to explain primary transfer to those unique locations on JB (was she wearing the same longjohns??) other DNA would be found, using the link as a set of D&D rule guide.
    I don't know why I keep writing this, since it never seems to register with anyone, but we don't know for sure that there WASN'T other DNA. The Bode tech on TV even said that the machine method they used eliminated other DNA samples that didn't match the existing "intruder" DNA. I'm not saying that they were unprofessional (though that bit cynic posted about the semen has me worried, to say the least). They most likely just did what they were instructed to do.
    Last edited by SuperDave; 10-14-2009 at 11:48 AM.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravyn View Post
    Can I ask a question here Det.Arndt said JR brought JonBenet up by holding her waist,now with doing this the DNA was found in the spot JR was holding now if he shook people's hands that day how would that read....
    It is a possibility. One thing is certain, both JR and PR were quite dedicated to contaminating JBR as much as possible to muddy the water.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    You don't hear much from the Boulder DA about whether JR's DNA was on the waistband of pants he admitted touching. Of course, if he shook hands that day, as he very likely did, THAT DNA could have ended up on JB's waistband.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Forensics is what gives the JIDI his power
    By voynich in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-14-2013, 05:44 PM
  2. Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight
    By voynich in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 02:46 PM
  3. A Hero's Return
    By DollyPardonMe in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 12:42 PM
  4. The return of maketoast.com
    By maketoast in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-16-2004, 08:42 AM