Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[BOESP]

Yes, its completely irrelevant....

Secondary transfer of fibers, fibers that are most likely to be on JBR in the first place, simply isn't remarkable. It also requires the unidentified fibers to be resolved. Where did THEY come from?

Much like degraded DNA that had to be replicated in order to meet minimum standards and much like Touch DNA that can come from secondary and tertiary transfer. Much like the two samples that could have cross-contaminated each other. Using the term "mixed" is, in my view, "puffing your wares" to try to sell them.

An intelligent juror will look at both fiber and DNA evidence and evaluate it without bias.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Much like degraded DNA that had to be replicated in order to meet minimum standards and much like Touch DNA that can come from secondary and tertiary transfer. Much like the two samples that could have cross-contaminated each other. Using the term "mixed" is, in my view, "puffing your wares" to try to sell them.

Uh oh. "Touch DNA" that can come from secondary and teritary transfer?? Sounds like an oxymoron, huh? Why do they call it "Touch DNA" if its only skin cell DNA? Seems if you're right, then they need to change the name to remove the 'Touch' expression if we can't assume it came from a touch.

Right or wrong?

I believe you're wrong, because the panty DNA was later found in two more places, on opposite sides of the longjohns waistband, in keeping with the nature of pulling her longjohns up or down. Therefore it most likely came from an actual touch by an unknown male. If it was an actual touch, then it occurred the night of the murder.

Go figure.

An intelligent juror will look at both fiber and DNA evidence and evaluate it without bias.

An intelligent juror never got the opportunity to do that because we are told there was not enough evidence for trial, or even an arrest (food for thought, unless you're paranoid and believe they're all sold out or afraid of JR or LW).

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course, its also in keeping with her pulling her OWN longjohns up and down. And since she could have picked up the touch DNA skin cells at the White's that day, it is a perfect explanation for a secondary transfer from any doorknob or surface JB may have touched after the donor did, to her own hands and then to her own clothes. It is easy for me to see how that DNA may have had nothing to do with the crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Of course, its also in keeping with her pulling her OWN longjohns up and down. And since she could have picked up the touch DNA skin cells at the White's that day, it is a perfect explanation for a secondary transfer from any doorknob or surface JB may have touched after the donor did, to her own hands and then to her own clothes. It is easy for me to see how that DNA may have had nothing to do with the crime.

A perfect explanation? Really? Thats just ridiculous. You're obviously oversimplified by saying "to her own clothes," totally glossing over the fact that matching DNA was found mixed with blood from the assault.

Its like talking to a wall.

Repeating, 'secondary transfer' and 'Touch DNA' are mutually opposed concepts. Either its from the touch of the donor, or its just DNA discovered using a scraping or taping method.

This same DNA was found MIXED with blood in JBR's underwear. Therefore, your explanation is far from perfect. You'll need to account for the presence of matching DNA in blood retrieved and analyzed from the assault. Its obvious you're not able to do that by simply stating that JBR had it on her hands.

 

[BOESP]

Uh oh. "Touch DNA" that can come from secondary and teritary transfer?? Sounds like an oxymoron, huh? Why do they call it "Touch DNA" if its only skin cell DNA? Seems if you're right, then they need to change the name to remove the 'Touch' expression if we can't assume it came from a touch.

Right or wrong?

I believe you're wrong, because the panty DNA was later found in two more places, on opposite sides of the longjohns waistband, in keeping with the nature of pulling her longjohns up or down. Therefore it most likely came from an actual touch by an unknown male. If it was an actual touch, then it occurred the night of the murder.

Go figure.

An intelligent juror never got the opportunity to do that because we are told there was not enough evidence for trial, or even an arrest (food for thought, unless you're paranoid and believe they're all sold out or afraid of JR or LW).

Skin cells can be transferred by secondary and tertiary contact. That's been explained here repeatedly.

You saying there was not enough evidence for trial doesn't make it so. We've also discussed the cross finger-pointing defense and why no jury could come to a conclusion as to who did what (Patsy or John) should it come to that.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us the instructions given to the Grand Jury so we can determine what they were instructed to do. I don't know that they were instructed to make a decision whether or not to indict.

Are you saying the panty DNA was touch DNA? Three places, if true, still does not mean the DNA was deposited during the commission of the crime and it certainly does not preclude it being distributed by transfer from a secondary party. And your repeated statement of "mixed" with her blood (a droplet at that) is misleading.

 

[BOESP]

Of course, its also in keeping with her pulling her OWN longjohns up and down. And since she could have picked up the touch DNA skin cells at the White's that day, it is a perfect explanation for a secondary transfer from any doorknob or surface JB may have touched after the donor did, to her own hands and then to her own clothes. It is easy for me to see how that DNA may have had nothing to do with the crime.

Ahhh ... an intelligent juror. :innocent:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Skin cells can be transferred by secondary and tertiary contact. That's been explained here repeatedly.

You saying there was not enough evidence for trial doesn't make it so. We've also discussed the cross finger-pointing defense and why no jury could come to a conclusion as to who did what (Patsy or John) should it come to that.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us the instructions given to the Grand Jury so we can determine what they were instructed to do. I don't know that they were instructed to make a decision whether or not to indict.

Are you saying the panty DNA was touch DNA? Three places, if true, still does not mean the DNA was deposited during the commission of the crime and it certainly does not preclude it being distributed by transfer from a secondary party. And your repeated statement of "mixed" with her blood (a droplet at that) is misleading.

It might help you to understand the concept of 'Touch DNA':

http://www.bodetech.com/technologies/touch-dna/touch-dna-overview

“Touch DNA” refers to the DNA that is left behind from skin cells when a person touches or comes into contact with an item.


Hmmm. Nothing about secondary or tertiary (what a laugh, tertiary) contact.

 

[BOESP]

A perfect explanation? Really? Thats just ridiculous. You're obviously oversimplified by saying "to her own clothes," totally glossing over the fact that matching DNA was found mixed with blood from the assault.

Its like talking to a wall.

Repeating, 'secondary transfer' and 'Touch DNA' are mutually opposed concepts. Either its from the touch of the donor, or its just DNA discovered using a scraping or taping method.

This same DNA was found MIXED with blood in JBR's underwear. Therefore, your explanation is far from perfect. You'll need to account for the presence of matching DNA in blood retrieved and analyzed from the assault. Its obvious you're not able to do that by simply stating that JBR had it on her hands.

HOTYH, don't you understand that a droplet falling on previously deposited DNA is "mixed" as you call it but it has nothing to do with whether or not both have something to do with the crime? By your reckoning, the creatine deposited on the bottom sheet of JonBenet's bed comes from urine that was deposited during the crime (which, in my view, is far more likely than your degraded DNA+minute blood droplet theory.

For there to be no Ramsey involvement in either the death, cover-up, or both, we'd have to ignore a lot of very convincing evidence to the contrary even if your DNA-is-the-magic-bullet opinion were to be correct.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, don't you understand that a droplet falling on previously deposited DNA is "mixed" as you call it but it has nothing to do with whether or not both have something to do with the crime? By your reckoning, the creatine deposited on the bottom sheet of JonBenet's bed comes from urine that was deposited during the crime (which, in my view, is far more likely than your degraded DNA+minute blood droplet theory.

For there to be no Ramsey involvement in either the death, cover-up, or both, we'd have to ignore a lot of very convincing evidence to the contrary even if your DNA-is-the-magic-bullet opinion were to be correct.

Do you realize that 'falling on previously deposited DNA' is a fiction? You're rationalizing that explanation in order to cling to RDI, because if the DNA is in solution with blood from the assault your whole idea falls apart?

It WAS in solution.

 

[BOESP]

It might help you to understand the concept of 'Touch DNA':

http://www.bodetech.com/technologies/touch-dna/touch-dna-overview

“Touch DNA” refers to the DNA that is left behind from skin cells when a person touches or comes into contact with an item.


Hmmm. Nothing about secondary or tertiary (what a laugh, tertiary) contact.

Apparently, you never shake hands with or touch another human being since, if you did, you'd understand how you would likely carry their skin cells on your person and those cells could easily transfer, just as your own MIGHT. Do you expect us to believe Patsy's touch DNA was no where to be found on these clothing items?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Apparently, you never shake hands with or touch another human being since, if you did, you'd understand how you would likely carry their skin cells on your person and those cells could easily transfer, just as your own MIGHT. Do you expect us to believe Patsy's touch DNA was no where to be found on these clothing items?

Hey, I'm just the messenger. Reread the Bode webpage, it says NOTHING about secondary or TERTIARY transfer. Do you just make this @#% up?

 

[BOESP]

Do you realize that 'falling on previously deposited DNA' is a fiction? You're rationalizing that explanation in order to cling to RDI, because if the DNA is in solution with blood from the assault your whole idea falls apart?

It WAS in solution.

Your "rationalizing" applies both ways HOTYH.

As SuperDave often says, you are putting words into my mouth. Please don't do that. It weakens your arguments. I explicitly worded my statement so that I left the DNA evidence in the realm of possibility. You twisting that around discredits your own words, not mine.

 

[BOESP]

Hey, I'm just the messenger. Reread the Bode webpage, it says NOTHING about secondary or TERTIARY transfer. Do you just make this @#% up?

And I said, do you expect us to believe that Patsy's DNA was not on the clothing since she, by her own words, says she dressed JonBenet in the long johns?

Yawn......

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

According to RDI:

1. Parental fibers found on JBR are primary transfer fibers deposited during a crime, even though these fibers are consistent with the most likely fibers to be found on JBR besides her own...

AND

2.. Unknown male DNA found on JBR are secondary or tertiary transfer deposited innocently, even though this DNA can't be traced to anyone tested locally or in CODIS.

There is NO WAY that RDI can show either 1 OR 2 to be a fact, and yet RDI needs both 1 AND 2 to be fact.

 

[BOESP]

According to RDI:

1. Parental fibers found on JBR are primary transfer fibers deposited during a crime, even though these fibers are consistent with the most likely fibers to be found on JBR besides her own...

AND

2.. Unknown male DNA found on JBR are secondary or tertiary transfer deposited innocently, even though this DNA can't be traced to anyone tested locally or in CODIS.

There is NO WAY that RDI can show either 1 OR 2 to be a fact, and yet RDI needs both 1 AND 2 to be fact.

The above is a broad, sweeping generalization (ad hominem "reasoning"). Several RDI's see the fiber evidence and the DNA evidence in equal light.

The totality of the evidence is what is important and unless and until we can visit the evidence locker we don't know what is going on. I, for one, do not put a lot of confidence in Mary Lacy's press releases.

 

[BOESP]

As an aside to the fiber question(s), does anyone know if fibers from Burke were found on JonBenet? Seems a likelihood that his fibers would also be found according to HOTYH's reasoning since Burke may have had as much contact with his sister as did John Ramsey.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The above is a broad, sweeping generalization (ad hominem "reasoning"). Several RDI's see the fiber evidence and the DNA evidence in equal light.

The totality of the evidence is what is important and unless and until we can visit the evidence locker we don't know what is going on. I, for one, do not put a lot of confidence in Mary Lacy's press releases.

Maybe you can't make it thru a post without ad hominem?

"Totality of evidence" is an abstract term that doesn't really represent anything. You've either got it or you don't.

Its just another RDI myth. Similar to these myths or NON-FACTS frequently presented as facts:

1. JBR was previously abused
2. PR wrote the note
3. PR sweater fibers are knotted in the cord
4. JR shirt fibers are in the underwear
5. PR bought cord at the hardware store
6. JBR ate pineapple in the kitchen
7. JBR was only tied up in the basement
8. The RN was bogus
9. The unknown male DNA is innocent
10. PR used cord on paintings
11. PR used tape on stage or paintings
12. PR's sweater fibers were in the paint tote
13. JBR was near death when strangled
14. The note was written by a journalism major
15. Prosecutors are afraid of JR and LW
16. There is a case, it only needs a prosecutor
17. The 2nd ligature was only staging
18. JBR was also manually strangled
19. JBR hit her head on an object (not the other way around)
20. PR was angry that night

These are loosely referred to as if they are facts when not one is known to be fact. Opinion, sure. Opinions come cheap.

 

[BOESP]

Maybe you can't make it thru a post without ad hominem?

"Totality of evidence" is an abstract term that doesn't really represent anything. You've either got it or you don't.

Its just another RDI myth. Similar to these myths or NON-FACTS frequently presented as facts:

1. JBR was previously abused
2. PR wrote the note
3. PR sweater fibers are knotted in the cord
4. JR shirt fibers are in the underwear
5. PR bought cord at the hardware store
6. JBR ate pineapple in the kitchen
7. JBR was only tied up in the basement
8. The RN was bogus
9. The unknown male DNA is innocent
10. PR used cord on paintings
11. PR used tape on stage or paintings
12. PR's sweater fibers were in the paint tote
13. JBR was near death when strangled
14. The note was written by a journalism major
15. Prosecutors are afraid of JR and LW
16. There is a case, it only needs a prosecutor
17. The 2nd ligature was only staging
18. JBR was also manually strangled
19. JBR hit her head on an object (not the other way around)
20. PR was angry that night

These are loosely referred to as if they are facts when not one is known to be fact. Opinion, sure. Opinions come cheap.

Well, to be honest HOTYH, my use of the term "ad hominem" comes from seeing it put into practice in most of your posts.

Yawn ....

 

[Ravyn]

This either shows ignorance on the part of the questioners as to fiber evidence, or they were trying their luck, seeing if PR would incriminate herself.

5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers

We believe? ML isn't lying when she says she believes the DNA belongs to an intruder. Is ML right? Is Mr. Levin right? The statement 'we believe' isn't a statement of fact. They said that they believed something, thats all. They did NOT say: "We know for a fact that your fibers were on JBR and that you put them there. How did you do that?"

11 the question is, can she explain to us how

How could PR explain a secondary transfer? How would she know? The questioner is obviously fishing for a primary transfer explanation, when a secondary transfer explanation is more than possible in each of the specified locations. Is PR qualified to answer? Does she even know all the possible means by which fibers can move from one object to another? Would PR be fooled into believing that the only answers they would consider for her own fibers are primary transfer answers?

Its a cheap trick that didn't really work. Unlike unknown male DNA in CODIS, I doubt PR fibers even exist as described in this interview, and I know RDI can't even prove that they do.

Its just another myth.


17 that match one of the two shirts that was

There is no such thing as fibers that match. Only fibers 'consistent with'.

Is Mr. Levin a fiber expert and if not should he have been asking a fiber expert instead of PR?

Now right here both sides could be right...The LE found fibers from the R's clothing and ML could had found DNA in three places on what JonBenet's was wearing...So the question is which holds more weight...Sitting back and reading the post,and sorry if I'm to believe that the DNA can be innocently transfer from one surface to another and even shaking hands or touching someone else,why not the fibers from PR...Now we have LHP saying on Dec 23 she moved the tote from upstairs down to the basement and PR saying,she never wore the jacket in the basement,so why couldn't the fibers come before the tote went down to the basement....

 

[Ravyn]

And about the longjohns,I wonder if PR's touch DNA not being found on the longjohns be such a surpise since Burke did tell LE that JonBenet did walk into the house that night,and we have JR's carrying JonBenet up from the basement and now ML says DNA was found from a unknown male...And first accounts with what JR said is that he read to JonBenet before he went to bed and what was found in JAR's suitcase a Dr.Sesus book...