Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[BBB167893]

I am sorry but aren't these experts both examining the SAME NOTE and the SAME HANDWRITINGS??I thought this is SCIENCE.Then how come both are so extreme and one says black and the other says white?So if this is science and not a joke then my only conclusion is that ONE of them is biased or corrupt or just.......lying.Which one is it.

Geez,this example shows clearly why I hate experts and why you can't trust any of them.........:banghead:

Just to follow up on what I already said, madeleine (although HOTYH would do well to read this as well), it helps to remember a few things. We really don't know how reliable Dusak's conclusions are, since he only had a limited sampling to work with, we don't know how much time he put into the examination (though it couldn't have been much--a few days at most), and even Ubowski himself had issues with it. We don't even know if there was a follow-up report. These could have been only the preliminaries. Contrast that with Epstein and Ziegler, who had a much larger sample pool, most likely put in far more time (Epstein himself said 50 hours), and had knowledge that PR could write left-handed. I won't even mention the attempted sabotage job on Tom Miller...YET.

But those considerations are small potatoes compared to the really glaring problem between the two sides: the experts who say PR wrote it have never been afraid to release accompanying reports detailing how they arrived at their conclusions. The "experts" IDI likes to quote have NEVER released any of their reports showing what standards they used to get where they got. The Rs never hesitated to release anything they thought would help their case--polygraph results, etc. BUT NOT THIS. They never even released the reports by their own bought-and-paid-for experts.

In fact, this discrepancy has been pointed out. During the Wolf suit, Hoffman turned to LW and said that if LW wanted to end this, all he had to do was produce the results of the initial handwriting analyses and prove they said what IDI claims they said. LW said it would be a pleasure to do just that. And therein lies the rub: LW had already TRIED to get those reports from Hal Haddon, but Haddon refused to give them to him. Haddon said that Grand Jury secrecy laws prevented him from giving them to LW. (It's also been mentioned that LW and Haddon's firm do not like each other. That strikes me as rich--Wood's too slimy for HADDON. Think about that.) But, some time after that, when the rules of Grand Jury secrecy were struck down in court as unconstitutional, LW tried to get those reports again. Haddon STILL refused to give them up. To this very day, Haddon has not released those reports to ANYONE. Why? What does he have to hide? When I pointed this fact out to voynich, even he was forced to admit that it doesn't look too good.

Does that help?

 

[BBB167893]

Hey, folks! I've got a goodie for you.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/Articles/2008/12/Just-a-Touch/Page/2.aspx

In it, we have a quote from David Spraggs, a detective from the Boulder Police Dept. itself:

Also, "touch DNA" is so sensitive that it's possible to pick up background DNA. For example, if a shirt is made by hand, then someone has touched the shirt even before it's packaged and sold. It's possible "touch DNA" could liberate these skin cells from the evidence, even though this person has nothing to do with the investigation.

And of course, "touch DNA" doesn't tell the investigator how the DNA made its way onto an item. It doesn't provide the culpable mental state of the individual that committed the crime.

It's up to the lawyers to argue whether the "touch DNA" is the result of a casual contact, or from the suspect forcefully grabbing the victim's shirt. The bottom line is that good police work is necessary to piece together the events surrounding the commission of the crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hey, folks! I've got a goodie for you.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/Articles/2008/12/Just-a-Touch/Page/2.aspx

In it, we have a quote from David Spraggs, a detective from the Boulder Police Dept. itself:

Also, "touch DNA" is so sensitive that it's possible to pick up background DNA. For example, if a shirt is made by hand, then someone has touched the shirt even before it's packaged and sold. It's possible "touch DNA" could liberate these skin cells from the evidence, even though this person has nothing to do with the investigation.

And of course, "touch DNA" doesn't tell the investigator how the DNA made its way onto an item. It doesn't provide the culpable mental state of the individual that committed the crime.

It's up to the lawyers to argue whether the "touch DNA" is the result of a casual contact, or from the suspect forcefully grabbing the victim's shirt. The bottom line is that good police work is necessary to piece together the events surrounding the commission of the crime.

The glaring omission from your post is the multitudes of reports indicating that the touch DNA matched the CODIS profile for DNA found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, and a possible match to DNA underneath JBR's fingernails.

It is only natural for RDI to rationalize new information that tends to indicate an intruder killed JBR. I wonder why RDI can't come up with any of its own new information so IDI can rationalize that?

ML found more DNA at the crime scene that matched the underwear DNA, and did so without RDI's help. Why can't RDI come up with something new?

 

[BBB167893]

The glaring omission from your post is the multitudes of reports indicating that the touch DNA matched the CODIS profile for DNA found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, and a possible match to DNA underneath JBR's fingernails.

Well, it's not really an omission, HOTYH. In fact, that was kind of my point of posting this article. Det. Spraggs outlines very nicely how JB could have transferred it to herself. Like it or not, until you actually find the DNA's donor, my idea is as good as yours.

It is only natural for RDI to rationalize new information that tends to indicate an intruder killed JBR.

Well, I certainly have no evidence that Det. Spraggs is RDI in any way. Whatever you've got on him, I'm open to hear it.

I wonder why RDI can't come up with any of its own new information so IDI can rationalize that?

Put one of us in position to call the shots. I'm sure something will come up! That's another problem: IDI has had a monopoly on the case since 2003 because they purposely excluded anyone who didn't agree with them. I'm not saying that turnabout is fair play; that's not what I want at all. But even an IDI stalwart has to see the problem with that approach to investigation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Put one of us in position to call the shots. I'm sure something will come up! That's another problem: IDI has had a monopoly on the case since 2003 because they purposely excluded anyone who didn't agree with them. I'm not saying that turnabout is fair play; that's not what I want at all. But even an IDI stalwart has to see the problem with that approach to investigation.

Hey I'm not picky. I found the whitespace idea and for me its a tell-all because its my own and it could've gone either way. I'll let you come up with your own idea thats your tell-all. I don't require that you hold a political office just to come up with a new RDI factoid (FACT-oid).

 

[BBB167893]

Hey I'm not picky.

Glad to hear it!

I'll let you come up with your own idea thats your tell-all.

The only thing I can come up with you could also go either way with.

I don't require that you hold a political office just to come up with a new RDI factoid (FACT-oid).

Got it.

 

[UKGuy]

Glad to hear it!



The only thing I can come up with you could also go either way with.



Got it.

SuperDave,
How about ML or the new DA requesting a John Doe Indictment, based on the fact that the DNA is up in CODIS. The DA might want to enlighten some Boulder taxpayers by including some relevant forensic details in the indictment.


,

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
How about ML or the new DA requesting a John Doe Indictment, based on the fact that the DNA is up in CODIS. The DA might want to enlighten some Boulder taxpayers by including some relevant forensic details in the indictment.


,

I seriously doubt they want to inform us of anything.