Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Anti-K]

If it was used as lubrication, it would have spread to the inner folds along with the object that was lubricated. Not the same as "touched". Keep in mind, you were the one to suggest lubrication for penetration.

I don’t believe you. And, I don’t see why it wouldn’t have washed out with the blood and/or been wiped away (or, dripped on the panties).
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Look, SD, I’ll help you out some more. You will never find a quote to support your claim because the DNA claim and of itself cannot be date stamped. It could be “not fresh” or it could be fresh. No one can tell, and that is why no expert ever said that it was “not fresh.”

Oh, you DID help me, Anti-K. Just not the way you wanted.

But, keep looking; I’m greatly amused.

You won't be for long. Because I intend to KEEP hammering this one. I'm gonna spoon-feed it to you guys until you gag on it.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't have a problem with it being saliva. I just don't think it has anything to do with the crime.

That goes for me, too.

 

[Anti-K]

Oh, you DID help me, Anti-K. Just not the way you wanted.



You won't be for long. Because I intend to KEEP hammering this one. I'm gonna spoon-feed it to you guys until you gag on it.

I think that if you had a credible, or any, source for your claim that Cellmark said that the DNA found in the panties was “not fresh” then you would have posted it by now. But, you haven’t. And you won’t. You can’t. Because this is not the sort of thing that Cellmark, or anyone knowledgeable in the field, would ever say (for reasons I have already explained – I’ll explain again).

You will never find a quote to support your claim because the DNA in and of itself cannot be date stamped. It could be “not fresh” or it could be fresh. No one can tell, and that is why no expert ever said that it was “not fresh.”
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I think that if you had a credible, or any, source for your claim that Cellmark said that the DNA found in the panties was “not fresh” then you would have posted it by now. But, you haven’t. And you won’t. You can’t. Because this is not the sort of thing that Cellmark, or anyone knowledgeable in the field, would ever say (for reasons I have already explained – I’ll explain again).

Oh, I didn't mean that, specifically. But I am curious: first you wanted a source that it was degraded. NOW, you want a source that it's time-stamped. Which is it?

You will never find a quote to support your claim because the DNA in and of itself cannot be date stamped. It could be “not fresh” or it could be fresh. No one can tell, and that is why no expert ever said that it was “not fresh.”

Henry Lee came pretty close back in August 2004.

You know, I don't rightly get you guys sometimes. The police chief and the former head of the investigation unit have said within the last two months that the DNA is likely just an artifact, but that's not good enough for you. I'd ask why, but frankly, I've been there, done that and moved ON.

 

[Anti-K]

Oh, I didn't mean that, specifically. But I am curious: first you wanted a source that it was degraded. NOW, you want a source that it's time-stamped. Which is it?



Henry Lee came pretty close back in August 2004.

You know, I don't rightly get you guys sometimes. The police chief and the former head of the investigation unit have said within the last two months that the DNA is likely just an artifact, but that's not good enough for you. I'd ask why, but frankly, I've been there, done that and moved ON.

No. you’re making things up. You shouldn’t do that. You claimed that Cellmark said that the DNA was “not fresh. “Not fresh.” Your words. No one, especially not me, ever asked you if the DNA was degraded. You’re making that up, stop it.

If you’re referring to Kolar, then that’s sad. No critical thinking skills, very little understanding of DNA. Sad, sad, sad, indeed.

Incidentally, artifacts are errors in analysis. False peaks, etc. Artifacts don’t find their way into CODIS.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

The test predicts the presence of amylase. Amylase WAS PRESENT in the sample tested; distal stain 007-2. It was not a vaginal swab. The foreign DNA collected was found to have been contributed by a HUMAN male. No need to assume anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So ask yourself why vaginal swabs yield false positives. Then ask yourself where distal stain 007-2 originated. I don't have any further information aside from the fact that "Vaginal swabs can yield a false positive", but one would have to assume that it might have something to do with the secretions of the vagina. As the major part of distal stain 007-2 came from inside her vagina, one must assume that it would have the same false positive risk factor as a vaginal swab. If you can explain why this thinking is flawed, please do.

 

[Anti-K]

So ask yourself why vaginal swabs yield false positives. Then ask yourself where distal stain 007-2 originated. I don't have any further information aside from the fact that "Vaginal swabs can yield a false positive", but one would have to assume that it might have something to do with the secretions of the vagina. As the major part of distal stain 007-2 came from inside her vagina, one must assume that it would have the same false positive risk factor as a vaginal swab. If you can explain why this thinking is flawed, please do.

The thinking is flawed because it is based on an assumption.

I’m not sure if this is worth arguing over. False positives occur. This is why no one is saying that the sample IS saliva, but only that it probably, or could (might) be saliva.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

The thinking is flawed because it is based on an assumption.

I’m not sure if this is worth arguing over. False positives occur. This is why no one is saying that the sample IS saliva, but only that it probably, or could (might) be saliva.
...

AK

My thinking isnt flawed. There is only a certain amount of information available about false positives for Phadebas tests.

In fact I know very little about Phadebas tests, but was positive that this sample wasn't saliva and I knew there had to be a logical explanation for the blue flash. Low and behold the only place where the Phadebas test is not reliable is on samples taken from the vagina, the exact place were the stain in question originated. How did I know that? Because the DNA on her panties and long johns came from whatever was used to wipe here down, and consists only of skin cells. No sperm, tears, spit, sweat or anything else. Those things aren't there because nobody was there to deposit them.

 

[Anti-K]

My thinking isnt flawed. There is only a certain amount of information available about false positives for Phadebas tests.

In fact I know very little about Phadebas tests, but was positive that this sample wasn't saliva and I knew there had to be a logical explanation for the blue flash. Low and behold the only place where the Phadebas test is not reliable is on samples taken from the vagina, the exact place were the stain in question originated. How did I know that? Because the DNA on her panties and long johns came from whatever was used to wipe here down, and consists only of skin cells. No sperm, tears, spit, sweat or anything else. Those things aren't there because nobody was there to deposit them.

You’re assuming that the mixed sample from the panties – major component victim’s blood, minor component believed to be saliva (or, sweat) – “would have the same false positive risk factor as a vaginal swab.”

Your assumption is just that, an assumption. It’s okay to use assumptions as a starting point for speculation, but I don’t think they’re a sound basis for conclusions.

Regardless, just because something can result in false positives doesn’t mean that they did result in a false positive.

All persons associated with the investigation say that this sample was saliva or sweat.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

You’re assuming that the mixed sample from the panties – major component victim’s blood, minor component believed to be saliva (or, sweat) – “would have the same false positive risk factor as a vaginal swab.”

Your assumption is just that, an assumption. It’s okay to use assumptions as a starting point for speculation, but I don’t think they’re a sound basis for conclusions.

Regardless, just because something can result in false positives doesn’t mean that they did result in a false positive.

All persons associated with the investigation say that this sample was saliva or sweat.
...

AK

Give me another logical explanation why vaginal swab would cause a false positive? It is obviously not the swab itself, so its not even an assumption to say that something in the vagina skews the result.

All persons associated with the investigation say that this sample was saliva or sweat.

Again wrong. All investigators in this case were told that it might be saliva or sweat.

Remember the Bernardo investigators were told that it might be a gold Camaro. What did that assumption cost them?

All I am saying is that it is very important to make a solid conclusion here, was it saliva or was it just another piece of skin? We have one guy, just one guy, who said it might have been saliva because of a blue flash, despite the fact that that the sample itself was no better than a vaginal swab. I doubt that it was saliva, I doubt that it was sweat, because there was no intruder there.

 

[Anti-K]

Give me another logical explanation why vaginal swab would cause a false positive? It is obviously not the swab itself, so its not even an assumption to say that something in the vagina skews the result.



Again wrong. All investigators in this case were told that it might be saliva or sweat.

Remember the Bernardo investigators were told that it might be a gold Camaro. What did that assumption cost them?

All I am saying is that it is very important to make a solid conclusion here, was it saliva or was it just another piece of skin? We have one guy, just one guy, who said it might have been saliva because of a blue flash, despite the fact that that the sample itself was no better than a vaginal swab. I doubt that it was saliva, I doubt that it was sweat, because there was no intruder there.

We don’t need to know why a vaginal swab might cause a false positive. We only need to know that it can. But, just because it can, doesn’t mean that it did.

We aren’t talking about a vaginal swab.

In this case we are talking about Distal Stain 007-2 (se Kolar; p. 303 -304). This is the male component from the mixed sample. It is a male sample. It flashed blue.

You’re entitled to your opinion but it is contrary to what persons associated with the case say about it, and they say it is saliva or sweat.

None of them, or any of us, are saying that it IS saliva. But, it is believed to be saliva (or, sweat).
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Give me another logical explanation why vaginal swab would cause a false positive? It is obviously not the swab itself, so its not even an assumption to say that something in the vagina skews the result.



Again wrong. All investigators in this case were told that it might be saliva or sweat.

Remember the Bernardo investigators were told that it might be a gold Camaro. What did that assumption cost them?

All I am saying is that it is very important to make a solid conclusion here, was it saliva or was it just another piece of skin? We have one guy, just one guy, who said it might have been saliva because of a blue flash, despite the fact that that the sample itself was no better than a vaginal swab. I doubt that it was saliva, I doubt that it was sweat, because there was no intruder there.

You're saying the scientific analysis of the evidence doesn't fit your theory, so you don't accept the evidence. This is where we differ.

 

[Tawny]

We're going on the assumption it was saliva, which would flash blue. Would blood flash blue?

 

[Mama2JML]

We're going on the assumption it was saliva, which would flash blue. Would blood flash blue?

Doubtful.

http://www.phadebas.com/areas-of-use/forensic-biology

 

[Anti-K]

We're going on the assumption it was saliva, which would flash blue. Would blood flash blue?

“Generally, amylase found in other body fluids will not be present in sufficient quantity for detection by the Phadebas method.
<snip>
&#8220;In-house testing at several independent forensic laboratories has determined that no other forensically relevant body fluid (sweat, semen and vaginal secretion) will react within 10 minutes using the current protocol, even after repeated deposition.&#8221; http://www.phadebas.com/areas-of-use/forensic-biology
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You're saying the scientific analysis of the evidence doesn't fit your theory, so you don't accept the evidence. This is where we differ.

I think there&#8217;s more to it than that. An expert says that the sample is saliva, but that opinion doesn&#8217;t fit with theory so it is rejected, BUT, if an expert said that Mrs Ramsey probably wrote the note and that opinion would be gold. All of a sudden, probably means something.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

You're saying the scientific analysis of the evidence doesn't fit your theory, so you don't accept the evidence. This is where we differ.

Now I KNOW I've gone through the looking glass!

 

[BBB167893]

No. you’re making things up. You shouldn’t do that. You claimed that Cellmark said that the DNA was “not fresh. “Not fresh.” Your words. No one, especially not me, ever asked you if the DNA was degraded. You’re making that up, stop it.

Just keep pushing.

If you’re referring to Kolar, then that’s sad. No critical thinking skills, very little understanding of DNA. Sad, sad, sad, indeed.

You're describing yourself, IMO.

Incidentally, artifacts are errors in analysis. False peaks, etc

In case you've forgotten, Anti-K, Henry Lee said that in fully HALF the cases where DNA is found, it's irrelevant to the case. And that was back in the days when you actually needed a fairly good-sized sample to do analysis. I don't even want to THINK about how much irrelevant DNA is being and will be found as these detection methods continue

Artifacts don’t find their way into CODIS.

Apparently they do, even though they shouldn't.

 

[BBB167893]

I think there&#8217;s more to it than that. An expert says that the sample is saliva, but that opinion doesn&#8217;t fit with theory so it is rejected, BUT, if an expert said that Mrs Ramsey probably wrote the note and that opinion would be gold. All of a sudden, probably means something.

You mean like how when the experts say the head blow was 45-120 minutes before the strangulation? THAT kind of rejection?

In all seriousness, Anti-K, you ALMOST have it right. Except that it's not a question of fitting with "theories," it's a question of fitting with the other evidence.