Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Mary Lacy is the biggest disgrace in this case. Bigger than Hunter and Smit. She knows NOTHING about who killed JB. She has NO proof the donor of the DNA killed her, NO proof the donor was even there at the time, and NO proof the donor was alone. NO proof the parents were not there as well. Quite the contrary. The parents' fibers found on items SPECIFIC to the crime indicate they were THERE. THAT night, with JB as she was being garroted, taped, redressed. Parental fibers found on all three items directly associated with the crime. Tape, garrote knot, re-dressed panties.

Since when is the blood in JBR's underwear not specific to the crime, and directly associated with it?

That blood contained the DNA. This actually places the DNA donor at the crime scene, whereas PR and JR fibers do not place them at the crime scene.

PR and JR fibers can be expected ALL OVER JBR. Unknown male DNA is not expected in three (3) separate places on the items of clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered.

All we have to do here is read and comprehend.

 

[BBB167893]

:banghead: Here we go again...:banghead:

 

[DeeDee249]

Since when is the blood in JBR's underwear not specific to the crime, and directly associated with it?

That blood contained the DNA. This actually places the DNA donor at the crime scene, whereas PR and JR fibers do not place them at the crime scene.

PR and JR fibers can be expected ALL OVER JBR. Unknown male DNA is not expected in three (3) separate places on the items of clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered.

All we have to do here is read and comprehend.

You misread what I said. I said the panties ARE directly related to the crime, and JR''s shirt fibers were found INSIDE the crotch. I stand by my comment about the DNA because it may have been on the panties before she was killed. The parent's fibers should NOT be in the garrote knot (they were) and should NOT be on the underside of the tape (they were). The tape was pulled off in the basement, and Patsy claims she did not see JB until she was placed on the living room floor. JB was also covered with a blanket when Patsy threw herself on the body. Patsy's do not belong where they were found. THOSE two places (tape and garrote knot) are specific to the crime itself and fibers found there prove presence at the time they were applied.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You misread what I said. I said the panties ARE directly related to the crime, and JR''s shirt fibers were found INSIDE the crotch. I stand by my comment about the DNA because it may have been on the panties before she was killed. The parent's fibers should NOT be in the garrote knot (they were) and should NOT be on the underside of the tape (they were). The tape was pulled off in the basement, and Patsy claims she did not see JB until she was placed on the living room floor. JB was also covered with a blanket when Patsy threw herself on the body. Patsy's do not belong where they were found. THOSE two places (tape and garrote knot) are specific to the crime itself and fibers found there prove presence at the time they were applied.

Parental fibers prove nothing. They're expected. And that assumes the fibers you speak of were even owned by a parent!

The DNA mixed with blood is proof however that the DNA was deposited during the crime. And we know that the DNA is not parentally owned.

PR and JR fibers are expected, are prevalent, and are subject to primary and secondary transfer at a rate exponentially higher than unknown male DNA.

 

[nobull]

PR and JR fibers are expected, are prevalent, and are subject to primary and secondary transfer at a rate exponentially higher than unknown male DNA.

But wait! The fibers were found in a garrote comprised of rope that was never found in the R's home. So, if I understand your reasoning, it's possible for an intruder to bring in the rope, do the deed AND get R fibers tied in the garrote? All this after writing the epic novel of an RN? Simply fascinating!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But wait! The fibers were found in a garrote comprised of rope that was never found in the R's home. So, if I understand your reasoning, it's possible for an intruder to bring in the rope, do the deed AND get R fibers tied in the garrote? All this after writing the epic novel of an RN? Simply fascinating!

1. First, how do you know there are fibers?
2. How do you know they are owned by a parent?
3. Is there some magic invisible barrier that prevents parental fibers located in JBR's hair, on her shirt, longjohns, etc., etc., from migrating to the cord?

Fibers are largely an RDI myth built up without a foundation, whereas DNA has become the hard reality.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But wait! The fibers were found in a garrote comprised of rope that was never found in the R's home. So, if I understand your reasoning, it's possible for an intruder to bring in the rope, do the deed AND get R fibers tied in the garrote? All this after writing the epic novel of an RN? Simply fascinating!

Hmm.

Rope that was never found in the home.

Unknown male DNA.

We might be needing a rocket scientist to help figure this out.

 

[Ravyn]

Now about the fibers from parents,why was PR trying so hard to explain how her fibers was found on JonBenet....About the DNA let say if the touch skin cells did come from an innocent person but if it matched the profile,we should hang the donor...Can you prove more than ML that the DNA did come from the intruder with 99.9% accurancy...And with JonBenet being wiped down can you say it couldn't be skin cells from the dirty clothes or anything else for that matter...

 

[Ravyn]

1) You said it yourself: If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it. Well, I realize it's been a while since I looked over my high school civics book, but last I knew, it's not the DA's job to decide who did it. That's SUPPOSED to be up to a jury. That's why we have trials. Can you even IMAGINE what it would be like if prosecutors around the country took it upon themselves to act the way the Boulder DA's office has acted, not just in this case, but in others? I would not wish to live in such a society, and I suspect neither would you.From SD


See why did Lacy believed she had the power to do what she did...And funny in one interview she said no one can be cleared unless they are convicted...But what was she thinking with that letter..And I thought also that is why we have people on a jury...But it would be scary if prosecutors done this around the world...

 

[madeleine]

Sour grapes. Again I ask, where is the big RDI discovery? Don't be jealous just because IDI has the only case development in years. This is essentially a rant--a high opinion adding zero new information.

Isn't there anything RDI has that can be rebutted? At least ML astutely provided more DNA matching the original CODIS DNA that the FBI accepted. RDI: what have you done for JBR lately besides get all defensive and paranoid?

Nope,those are reasonable questions and a real prosecutor would have had some answers to them before exonerating the prime suspects in a murder case.

LMAO I would have loved to see M.Lacy in court trying to pin this on someone only based on some skin cells.

It's not semen,it's not blood.
This article does make a good point.....the DNA could have ended up there AFTER she was killed.

Btw,did they ever take dna samples from the good dr.Beuf(sp?)?Maybe he was called over after the accident (or whatever happened there)and it was too late.(could be the reason they don't want the phone records unsealed )

 

[Tadpole12]

1) You said it yourself: If the DA knows for a fact that an intruder did it. Well, I realize it's been a while since I looked over my high school civics book, but last I knew, it's not the DA's job to decide who did it. That's SUPPOSED to be up to a jury. That's why we have trials. Can you even IMAGINE what it would be like if prosecutors around the country took it upon themselves to act the way the Boulder DA's office has acted, not just in this case, but in others? I would not wish to live in such a society, and I suspect neither would you.From SD


See why did Lacy believed she had the power to do what she did...And funny in one interview she said no one can be cleared unless they are convicted...But what was she thinking with that letter..And I thought also that is why we have people on a jury...But it would be scary if prosecutors done this around the world...

Hiya Ravyn.

LKL August 30, 2006, the fallaibility of dna was considered, pre touch dna pattern.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/30/lkl.01.html


WOOD: I believe if you get a match on the DNA, you better find somebody that has one heck of an alibi in terms of where they were in December of 1996. I don't think it's 100 percent foolproof, Larry, but I think that just as in this case we've learned that the DNA is thought to be clearly the DNA of the killer. It is of sufficient quality that we're going to find that it does one day solve this case and prevent innocent individuals from being unfairly and falsely charged with it.







LACY: What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can. You know there's this -- these terms out there, umbrella of suspicion. We don't use that. You know, no one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

And, I don't think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone where like in this case the facts are so strange. And, obviously the family was in the house at the time.

The DNA does not match. You know, so what we can say is, I think an expert said it's -- it's -- you have to look at stranger male DNA in the underwear of a dead victim.

 

[nobull]

1. Is there some magic invisible barrier that prevents parental fibers located in JBR's hair, on her shirt, longjohns, etc., etc., from migrating to the cord?

Fibers are largely an RDI myth built up without a foundation, whereas DNA has become the hard reality.

No more of an invisible barrier that would supercede an intruder's dandruff, clothing fibers, DNA etc. from migrating to the rope.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No more of an invisible barrier that would supercede an intruder's dandruff, clothing fibers, DNA etc. from migrating to the rope.

It seems to me you're implying the crime scene is sterile or devoid of intruder evidence.

An intruder's DNA was found, and there are intruder fibers. This statement is no less valid than RDI's continuous hype that the DNA is not relevant and the fibers belong exclusively to PR or JR. The former has more validity because the DNA finding was corroborated by even more DNA findings (thanks to ML).

 

[DeeDee249]

It seems to me you're implying the crime scene is sterile or devoid of intruder evidence.

An intruder's DNA was found, and there are intruder fibers. This statement is no less valid than RDI's continuous hype that the DNA is not relevant and the fibers belong exclusively to PR or JR. The former has more validity because the DNA finding was corroborated by even more DNA findings (thanks to ML).

Where are the intruder fibers? Unsourced fibers and/or other extraneous matter are found everywhere It doesn't mean an intruder brought them in.

 

[DeeDee249]

All the following are found in the interviews with the Rs-
LE was able to source the following fibers- Patsy's sweater fibers in the knot of the garrote cord and the inside of the tape. Patsy claims she was never in the basement wearing that sweater. The tape was removed and left in the basement.
Fibers from JR's wool shirt were found inside panties that were placed on JB after she was wiped down.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

All the following are found in the interviews with the Rs-
LE was able to source the following fibers- Patsy's sweater fibers in the knot of the garrote cord and the inside of the tape. Patsy claims she was never in the basement wearing that sweater. The tape was removed and left in the basement.
Fibers from JR's wool shirt were found inside panties that were placed on JB after she was wiped down.

LE was not able to source these fibers.

Do you really think investigators are going to tell a suspect the truth about everything? You've GOT to be KIDDING me. How NAIVE does this GET?

There is nothing remarkable about any PR or JR fiber anywhere on JBR. Its their daughter, remember?

Also, there's no such thing as PR's sweater fibers. Only fibers 'consistent with' PR's sweater. Let me tell you there's a BIG difference.

 

[DeeDee249]

LE was not able to source these fibers. Do you really think investigators are going to tell a suspect the truth about everything? You've GOT to be KIDDING me.

There is nothing remarkable about any PR or JR fiber anywhere on JBR. Its their daughter, remember?

Also, there's no such thing as PR's sweater fibers. Only fibers 'consistent with' PR's sweater. Let me tell you there's a BIG difference.

Parents' fibers do not belong on the tape and cord and the inside of the panties IF the parents claim they never saw their daughter in the basement. The tape, cord, and panties all were placed on JB in the basement. Fibers do not "migrate" INSIDE a pair of panties UNDER a pair of longjohns nor do the migrate down to a basement. Patsy claims she never wore that jacket in the basement (she actually said this to LE). When Patsy saw JB she was already covered with a blanket, remember? So I'd say there was something remarkable about the parents' fibers being found in those three places.
"Consistent with" is the term always used is forensic tests for fibers. It will stand up in court. Unless the item is a one-of-a-kind, that it the only classification that can me made. Even in a one-of-a-kind sweater, the yarn used may not be one-of-a-kind. So this is pretty standard.
The difference may seem BIG to you, but in court, "consistent with" can close a case.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Parents' fibers do not belong on the tape and cord and the inside of the panties IF the parents claim they never saw their daughter in the basement. The tape, cord, and panties all were placed on JB in the basement. Fibers do not "migrate" INSIDE a pair of panties UNDER a pair of longjohns nor do the migrate down to a basement. Patsy claims she never wore that jacket in the basement (she actually said this to LE). When Patsy saw JB she was already covered with a blanket, remember? So I'd say there was something remarkable about the parents' fibers being found in those three places.
"Consistent with" is the term always used is forensic tests for fibers. It will stand up in court. Unless the item is a one-of-a-kind, that it the only classification that can me made. Even in a one-of-a-kind sweater, the yarn used may not be one-of-a-kind. So this is pretty standard.
The difference may seem BIG to you, but in court, "consistent with" can close a case.

Parents fibers don't belong in JBR's underwear, yet unknown male DNA is OK there, mixed with blood no less. Is that what you think?


Please tell me you're not serious.

Fibers do not "migrate" INSIDE a pair of panties UNDER a pair of longjohns nor do the migrate down to a basement.

You're right. Fibers are not birds.

Fibers are transferred from one surface to another, depending on the nature of the surface. JBR's clothing, skin, bedding, and hair would be a collector of parental fiber. Once there, these fibers can contaminate anything. Now you'll be inferring the quantity of fibers based on the interviews, I guess.

 

[Ravyn]

Parents fibers don't belong in JBR's underwear, yet unknown male DNA is OK there, mixed with blood no less. Is that what you think?


Please tell me you're not serious.



You're right. Fibers are not birds.

Fibers are transferred from one surface to another, depending on the nature of the surface. JBR's clothing, skin, bedding, and hair would be a collector of parental fiber. Once there, these fibers can contaminate anything. Now you'll be inferring the quantity of fibers based on the interviews, I guess.

You are right...If PR hugged JonBenet her shirt fibers could had transfer from there...Just really been thinking if skin cells can innocently be transfer so can fibers...

 

[BOESP]

It is not whether parental fibers or unknown DNA do or do not belong there. The problem is, for starters,

1) the panties were brand new
2) the panties seem to have come from an unwrapped Christmas package of panties found in the basement
3) fibers or DNA in panties could have arrived there innocently or not so innocently
4) the fibers are consistent with clothing worn within a few hours of the homicide, clothing worn by both Patsy and John who were on the scene and had access
5) the DNA can not be identified and can not be shown to have been deposited by an Intruder


Probability says the chance of finding fibers "consistent with" (in forensics, meaning "probably the same as") would indicate a rare chance the fibers are not connected to the event, since fibers consistent with those worn by both Patsy and John within hours of JonBenet's death were found intertwined in the cord, in the panty, and underneath the blanket on JonBenet's clothing. Those places are not easily accessible. Fibers on top of the blanket are more questionable.

Degraded DNA and touch DNA that can not be sourced to an individual or proved to have been deposited by the original contributor at time of the event is, in my opinion, more highly questionable than the circumstances of fiber deposit.

I can not give the DNA more credence than the fibers. I find it highly unlikely that fibers that came from clothing worn the same night of the homicide somehow innocently landed intertwined in a rope and inside a panty. Unsourced DNA, could have come from the same clothing the fibers came from, or from shedding from hands or clothing as a secondary or tertiary transfer.

Evaluating the probabilities tells me the fibers mean as much as the DNA, if not more.