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

BBB167893 · Sep 24, 2009

Ravyn said:
Carnes didn't have all the evidence

Oh, heck. You beat me to it. The only "evidence" Carnes saw was what the Rs produced (which they would never have HAD in the first place if Hunter hadn't given up the store). Most if not all of it could have been refuted, but it wasn't.

and I guess Lacy thought she did

Michael Kane's not even sure if Lacy ever read the whole case file.

BBB167893 · Sep 24, 2009

voynich said:
RDI have not produced any reporters interviewing dissenting DNA experts on this specific case.

Just because they haven't interviewed any doesn't mean there aren't any. Like I told you: LW's got 'em all too damn scared.

madeleine · Sep 25, 2009

SuperDave said:
Just because they haven't interviewed any doesn't mean there aren't any. Like I told you: LW's got 'em all too damn scared.

Actually I think this was Lacy's goal,by publicly exonerating them she made it harder for everyone to talk about it.She gave Lin Wood exactly what he needed.Bwah,shhhhh,you can't say the R are guilty,they have been cleared,I'll sue you.They made sure the media&all talking heads will stay quiet when it comes to RDI talk.Good strategy,isn't it.

cynic · Sep 26, 2009

voynich said:
It's one thing to say that there's a 1% possibility that the DNA found was the result of secondary transfer, it's another thing to go from this possibility to the claim that that's what it is.

Secondary transfer is not a matter of probabilities. People shed an average of 40,000 cells a minute. Essentially, unless JB was living in some sort of sterile bubble girl environment, secondary transfer could never be ruled out. Investigators may try to find all the possible people that could be innocently responsible for secondary transfer, but ultimately they may never really know if they contacted them all and received DNA samples to rule them out. You must also take into account that the long johns that JB was wearing that night may not have been freshly laundered.

voynich said:
In the experiments you cite, there's no clear cut way to determine whether JB came in contact through a good shedder or poor shedder, but that an intruder directly handling her undies and pants would guarantee a transfer, whereas JB touching someone then touching herself in those areas would not guarantee a transfer.

Note that Patsy also handled the long johns and people that she was in contact with would also be possibilities for secondary transfer.

voynich said:
As I stated before, Lacy contacted independent DNA experts and based on their recommendations, she concludes that "there is no innocent explanation" for DNA, and I've asked for any respected DNA experts to step forward and argued that secondary transfer better explains the findings. You are free to request more info under FOIA.

Let me just say that Lacy is a complete moron. I cite as evidence John Mark Karr and the Ramsey exoneration letter. Anyone dumb enough to pull the stunt she did with JMK is clearly not able to form any logical conclusions about anything.
No DNA expert would ever rule out the possibility of secondary transfer barring some sort of extraordinary circumstances.
The totality of the evidence should be your guide. The DNA is merely one small element in this case.
The way DNA is being misused by Lacy and others in this case reminds me of the way a single unidentified fingerprint (that was probably left by the cable guy) in a crime scene can be focused on by a defense attorney and held up as proof that the real killer is still out there somewhere while there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the guilt of their client. Sad.

cynic · Sep 26, 2009

voynich said:
OJ's skillful attorneys were able to do the opposite of what you suggest -- the tremendous amount of DNA linking OJ to the murders was disregarded by the jury, so I don't deny that attorneys can do this. As w/OJ trial, what skillful demagogues can conjure up with gullible juries is no reflection of what actually happened.

What I am suggesting is merely that a good prosecutor with a stomach for a fight would be able to put the DNA in its proper place as merely one piece of the puzzle while underscoring that all the rest of the pieces of the puzzle form a portrait of the Ramseys. The jury would then be left to correctly conclude that the foreign DNA could only be explained by secondary transfer.
The OJ case will probably always be remembered as one of the most outlandish miscarriages of justice to have ever occurred. Barry Schecks handling of the DNA evidence for the defense in the case was completely dishonest and morally reprehensible bordering on criminal. It disgusts me even as I think of it today and I certainly would not want anyone to think that Schecks repulsive display is what I would classify as skillful

DeeDee249 · Sep 26, 2009

cynic said:
What I am suggesting is merely that a good prosecutor with a stomach for a fight would be able to put the DNA in its proper place as merely one piece of the puzzle while underscoring that all the rest of the pieces of the puzzle form a portrait of the Ramseys. The jury would then be left to correctly conclude that the foreign DNA could only be explained by secondary transfer.
The OJ case will probably always be remembered as one of the most outlandish miscarriages of justice to have ever occurred. Barry Schecks handling of the DNA evidence for the defense in the case was completely dishonest and morally reprehensible bordering on criminal. It disgusts me even as I think of it today and I certainly would not want anyone to think that Schecks repulsive display is what I would classify as skillful

:clap:

madeleine · Sep 27, 2009

cynic said:
Secondary transfer is not a matter of probabilities. People shed an average of 40,000 cells a minute. Essentially, unless JB was living in some sort of sterile “bubble girl” environment, secondary transfer could never be ruled out. Investigators may try to find all the possible people that could be innocently responsible for secondary transfer, but ultimately they may never really know if they contacted them all and received DNA samples to rule them out. You must also take into account that the long johns that JB was wearing that night may not have been freshly laundered.

Note that Patsy also handled the long johns and people that she was in contact with would also be possibilities for secondary transfer.

Let me just say that Lacy is a complete moron. I cite as evidence John Mark Karr and the Ramsey exoneration letter. Anyone dumb enough to pull the stunt she did with JMK is clearly not able to form any logical conclusions about anything.
No DNA expert would ever rule out the possibility of secondary transfer barring some sort of extraordinary circumstances.
The totality of the evidence should be your guide. The DNA is merely one small element in this case.
The way DNA is being misused by Lacy and others in this case reminds me of the way a single unidentified fingerprint (that was probably left by the cable guy) in a crime scene can be focused on by a defense attorney and held up as proof that “the real killer” is still out there somewhere while there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the guilt of their client. Sad.

:clap:

voynich · Sep 28, 2009

cynic said:
Secondary transfer is not a matter of probabilities. People shed an average of 40,000 cells a minute. Essentially, unless JB was living in some sort of sterile “bubble girl” environment, secondary transfer could never be ruled out. Investigators may try to find all the possible people that could be innocently responsible for secondary transfer, but ultimately they may never really know if they contacted them all and received DNA samples to rule them out. You must also take into account that the long johns that JB was wearing that night may not have been freshly laundered.

Note that Patsy also handled the long johns and people that she was in contact with would also be possibilities for secondary transfer.

Let me just say that Lacy is a complete moron. I cite as evidence John Mark Karr and the Ramsey exoneration letter. Anyone dumb enough to pull the stunt she did with JMK is clearly not able to form any logical conclusions about anything.
No DNA expert would ever rule out the possibility of secondary transfer barring some sort of extraordinary circumstances.
The totality of the evidence should be your guide. The DNA is merely one small element in this case.
The way DNA is being misused by Lacy and others in this case reminds me of the way a single unidentified fingerprint (that was probably left by the cable guy) in a crime scene can be focused on by a defense attorney and held up as proof that “the real killer” is still out there somewhere while there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the guilt of their client. Sad.

Primary transfer isn't a matter of probabilities either according to your logic. The likelyhood of a primary transfer of the perp directly handling those clothing is incomparable greater than JB touching something then touching the clothing where the DNA was found. the figure you cite doesn't take account of the fact that not all those cells will transfer, and even fewer would secondary transfer. Additionally, as I stated before I'm not aware of this DNA also finding DNA from JB's last known contacts, including the White party. IF that DNA was found along with the Whites and other last known contacts.

"Secondary transfer is not a matter of probabilities. People shed an average of 40,000 cells a minute. Essentially, unless JB was living in some sort of sterile “bubble girl” environment, secondary transfer could never be ruled out. "

That's quite a leap of logic right there. First, secondary transfer is a matter of probabilities as it depends on length of contact, how many cells "stick", whether they are found, etc. Second while it can't be ruled out, it can be judged to be much less likely than primary transfer. Third, DNA testing should pickup a variety of DNA from Whites, BR, others, not just this unaccounted for male DNA.

YOu can say that the reason OJ has Nicole's DNA and vice versa is due to "secondary transfer"

BBB167893 · Sep 28, 2009

voynich said:
First, secondary transfer is a matter of probabilities as it depends on length of contact, how many cells "stick", whether they are found, etc. Second while it can't be ruled out, it can be judged to be much less likely than primary transfer.

You're forgetting something vital, voynich. For my part, you have to take the holistic view and balance the DNA against everything else to reach a conclusion. Let me lay this on you: in order to prove that there was a primary transfer, you have to prove that someone else was there that night, which to date, cannot be done.

I have something even better. In the state of Maine, there's a man named Dennis Dechaine serving a life service for murder. In 1988, he kidnapped, assaulted and murdered a young girl named Sarah Cherry. Despite the fact that a mountain of evidence, including his own confessions earned him that sentence, there's a movement to free him. The "evidence?" DNA on Sarah that doesn't match his. Whoever killed Sarah (I'm convinced it was Dechaine), stripped her,sexually assaulted her with sticks (which were still inside her), stabbed her with a very small knife and strangled her with a rope. Now, you'd THINK that Dechaine's DNA would be all over her, right? Especially since DNA testing hadn't really come into its own yet and Dechaine wouldn't be careful about leaving it. Well, if it is, I've certainly heard nothing of it! The only DNA that's mentioned is the DNA that didn't match his.

Isn't that odd?

Third, DNA testing should pickup a variety of DNA from Whites, BR, others, not just this unaccounted for male DNA.

We don't know it DIDN'T. I saw a demonstration on TV where the tech said that the machine filters out any DNA that is not a match to the sample you're looking to match. They said it, not me.

You can say that the reason OJ has Nicole's DNA and vice versa is due to "secondary transfer"

Actually, no. And again, it goes back to the holistic view: OJ's crime scene DNA was blood. It was not degraded or miniscule. And he had a cut on his hand. Now, given everything else, wouldn't you say it was likely that he accidentally cut himself during his killing frenzy?

voynich · Sep 28, 2009

SuperDave said:
You're forgetting something vital, voynich. For my part, you have to take the holistic view and balance the DNA against everything else to reach a conclusion. Let me lay this on you: in order to prove that there was a primary transfer, you have to prove that someone else was there that night, which to date, cannot be done.

I have something even better. In the state of Maine, there's a man named Dennis Dechaine serving a life service for murder. In 1988, he kidnapped, assaulted and murdered a young girl named Sarah Cherry. Despite the fact that a mountain of evidence, including his own confessions earned him that sentence, there's a movement to free him. The "evidence?" DNA on Sarah that doesn't match his. Whoever killed Sarah (I'm convinced it was Dechaine), stripped her,sexually assaulted her with sticks (which were still inside her), stabbed her with a very small knife and strangled her with a rope. Now, you'd THINK that Dechaine's DNA would be all over her, right? Especially since DNA testing hadn't really come into its own yet and Dechaine wouldn't be careful about leaving it. Well, if it is, I've certainly heard nothing of it! The only DNA that's mentioned is the DNA that didn't match his.

Isn't that odd?

We don't know it DIDN'T. I saw a demonstration on TV where the tech said that the machine filters out any DNA that is not a match to the sample you're looking to match. They said it, not me.

Actually, no. And again, it goes back to the holistic view: OJ's crime scene DNA was blood. It was not degraded or miniscule. And he had a cut on his hand. Now, given everything else, wouldn't you say it was likely that he accidentally cut himself during his killing frenzy?

I can't comment on Dennis Dechaine but the fact is, the RN where handwriting and linguistics does not match, to the slip-knot tied garrotte which no evidence the R's could tie a knot, to open window, scuff marks, unaccounted for fiber evidence, unsourced tape and cord, missing paint brush part never found, are all evidence an intruder was present that night.

cynic · Sep 28, 2009

voynich said:
secondary transfer while it can't be ruled out, it can be judged to be much less likely than primary transfer.

Unfortunately none of us has ever seen the raw data in terms of electropherograms for any of the evidence submitted for DNA testing in this case.
As such, various pundits on several forums that discuss this case will forever be locked in debate based solely on speculation fueled by the few scraps of information thrown our way by LE, DA's office etc.
I would be surprised if the long johns submitted to touch DNA testing did not contain at least 3 or 4 significant profiles (including of course JBR and PR) and some minor profiles.

There is a subjective element to DNA analysis.
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

Note the uncertainty in the following report concerning one of the bloodstains on JBRs panties.

FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX- COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
5 #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
RAMSEY
EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED
[ame="http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280249"]http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280249[/ame]

[ame="http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578"]http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578[/ame]

We do not know who was ruled out and how complete the search was for innocent sources of secondary transfer. Secondary transfer cannot be ruled out
We do not know the number of markers present in the profile from the long johns.
We do know that the best profile from one of the blood stains has 9 good markers and one other marginal / inconclusive marker. This means that the DNA would be strongly challenged in court as it does fall short of the minimal 10 marker standard and 13 marker gold standard.

As SD has said, and as I have said, the DNA in this case and any case has to fit in order to be relevant. The DNA in this case sticks out like a sore thumb and reeks of irrelevancy.
Let me give you a hypothetical.
JBR scratches the "intruder". The intruder bleeds and a few drops of blood are found near her body. DNA analysis reveals a 10 13 marker match between the blood on the floor and skin tissue found under JBRs fingernails. DNA found on the garrote also matches. The DNA does not match any family or friends. There would be no reasonable innocent explanation for this.

BBB167893 · Sep 29, 2009

voynich said:
I can't comment on Dennis Dechaine

It's a fairly obscure case, voynich. I only found out by accident.

but the fact is, the RN where handwriting and linguistics does not match,

Well, linguistics is up in the air, I'll grant you that. But there were quite a few who said it did, handwriting-wise.

to the slip-knot tied garrotte which no evidence the R's could tie a knot

Actually, the story about the "Extremely sophisticated" knot is just that: a story. A knot expert was brought in from Canada to study it. He concluded that it was a very simple knot that anyone could have tied.

to open window, scuff marks,

None of which is proven from that night.

unaccounted for fiber evidence,

Yeah, there's a few fibers on my side that can't be accounted for either! (Hint, hint.)

unsourced tape and cord,

I seem to recall we went over that just a short time ago. Ended kind of abruptly, but that's okay.

missing paint brush part never found, are all evidence an intruder was present that night.

Well played. But I could do the same.

cynic · Sep 29, 2009

voynich said:
...are all evidence an intruder was present that night.

FBI Knocks Down Intruder Theory
As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.
Thomas wrote that the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."
Thomas reported that "CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."
The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."
Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.
CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.
Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

Ravyn · Oct 10, 2009

If there was other blood stains why was the longjohns just focused on if they had other samples why not them too....

cynic · Oct 12, 2009

Ravyn said:
If there was other blood stains why was the longjohns just focused on if they had other samples why not them too....

Well, there definitely were other bloodstains (not many, however) found and taken into evidence. To the best of my knowledge, they were all tested early into the investigation and found to contain no unexplained DNA.
I agree that there is merit to further testing of more items (using touch DNA procedures).
Personally, I would love to see the pants that JBR wore to the party tested. For example, if intruder DNA were to be found on those pants it would tend to corroborate an innocent secondary transfer theory. It would be unlikely that an intruder would be in primary contact with those pants.
Another potentially interesting item for testing would be the ligature. If only PRs DNA was found and not the intruder DNA, it would be quite problematic indeed for the RST.
Certainly, money would have been better spent on further DNA testing rather than on Thailand fishing expeditions.

voynich · Oct 12, 2009

cynic said:
FBI Knocks Down Intruder Theory
As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.
Thomas wrote that the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."
Thomas reported that "CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."
The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."
Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.
CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.
Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

SD and I discussed this, including
(a) profilers are not always right, best example is Unabomber,
(b) CASKU did not include "Amy" rape
(c) CASKU analysis was done before current DNA analysis.
(d) several statements that came out of CASKU and others are wrong.

cynic · Oct 12, 2009

voynich said:
SD and I discussed this, including
(a) profilers are not always right, best example is Unabomber,
(b) CASKU did not include "Amy" rape
(c) CASKU analysis was done before current DNA analysis.
(d) several statements that came out of CASKU and others are wrong.

The basis upon which their conclusion was made is as valid today as it was then.
The totality of the case points to RDI.

cynic · Oct 12, 2009

voynich said:
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."

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/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf

cynic · Oct 12, 2009

voynich said:
If you want to argue that the possibility of secondary DNA transfer invalidates this exoneration, then I could argue that the fact CASKU did not consider Amy's rape and this DNA evidence invalidates the CASKU analysis.

Lacy was too blinded by love to consider the possibility of secondary transfer.

Re Bode:

The Illinois State Police canceled its contract for DNA analysis with the Bode Technology Group after finding that it failed to recognize semen on evidence in 22 percent of cases that were checked again by forensic scientists who work for the police.
Out of a random sample of 51 cases that were re-analyzed for quality assurance, the police said 11 tested positive for the existence of semen. They plan to test all 1,200 cases that Bode Technology said tested negative for semen and are asking the state attorney general for permission to sue the company.
''The work provided by Bode was imprecise and we can't tolerate that type of work in this business,'' Larry Trent, the state police director, said at a news conference on Friday. ''I'm outraged that a company with their reputation would conduct business in this manner, and we're not going to let them get away with it.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E0DB103EF933A1575BC0A9639C8B63

Ravyn · Oct 12, 2009

So if Bode is being proved to made mistakes in other cases and if tested again about what they said they found on JonBenet's longjohns prove to be false that exoneration letter might not mean nothing....

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

Unknown DNA found in 3 places, 2 articles clothing more likely

I"m RDI, to have been deposited by intruder than innocent transfer

I"m RDI, innocent transfer more likely

I"m JIDI, to have been deposited by intruder than innocent transfer

I"m JIDI, innocent transfer more likely

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics