POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

[Solace]

This study is only useful if they used routine STR testing. Where does it say this type of testing was used?

If they did use routine testing, it seems as if we have conflicting studies.

Conflicting studies? Didn't think that was possible Jayce. But I guess it is, you know. Oh well, you can't always be right. Do let it rattle you. Just keep digging.

 

[Solace]

Sure. Routine testing issue-http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh52kcyVPfSCXQv7rZ-DA9UO0l5gD91QJD180

Secondary transfer issue-http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

Ames.

Be sure and read the post that Cynic posted, so you get the entire picture.

 

[Jayce]

Conflicting studies? Didn't think that was possible Jayce. But I guess it is, you know. Oh well, you can't always be right. Do let it rattle you. Just keep digging.

I said "if they did use routine testing". Of course conflicting studies are possible.

 

[Jayce]

Ames.

Be sure and read the post that Cynic posted, so you get the entire picture.

Except there is nothing in his study that indicated they used routine STR testing.

 

[Solace]

I said "if they did use routine testing". Of course conflicting studies are possible.

Glad to see you are up to snuff on that possibility. Hope for you yet.

Ames, don't forget to check out the other study. We want all sides here.

And also Ames, lets not forget these two items of clothing were in constant touch with each other. It is not like one was found upstairs and one in the basement. They were rubbing against each other and one on top of the other for hours and hours. It boggles the mind how Lacy dare to write this letter.

Maybe they will come up with something substantial, but I doubt it, because Patsy lost control that evening and killed her daughter and for some strange reason John aided and abetted.

 

[cynic]

Except there is nothing in his study that indicated they used routine STR testing.

Yet another "conflicting" study for you.

"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)."
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf​

 

[Jayce]

Yet another "conflicting" study for you.

The previous studies that you have posted don't conflict with mine. Its pretty obvious that you are not closely examining the studies that you post.

"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)."
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf​

You obviously didn't read the study that I posted. It deals directly with your study. They examined the findings of Oorschot and Jones (your study) and redid the experiment. They found their study lacking and concluded "Our data do not support the conclusion that secondary transfer will compromise DNA typ-ing results under typical forensic conditions."


Anyway, I have to go. It's been interesting...

 

[Solace]

The previous studies that you have posted don't conflict with mine. Its pretty obvious that you are not closely examining the studies that you post.

You obviously didn't read the study that I posted. It deals directly with your study. They examined the findings of Oorschot and Jones (your study) and redid the experiment. They found their study lacking and concluded "Our data do not support the conclusion that secondary transfer will compromise DNA typ-ing results under typical forensic conditions."


Anyway, I have to go. It's been interesting...

Obnoxious sort, isn't he.

I guess since his study doesn't agree with your study, that your study is wrong.

 

[LinasK]

When I say "flopped like a fish," I mean, first he climbed into the well, stepping all over it. (you could see little flecks of debris falling into the room) Then he squatted, flung his legs inside, flinging more dirt and rubbing his bottom all over the sill, then he slid in, taking half the window with him.



Not much of anything. Although, even at the beginning, there was one thing that struck me. And that was, "why would this person try to sound like an Islamic jihadist?" They didn't even name the faction (Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda) My idea behind that now is that the Ramseys had seen the news earlier that year, when the names Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were first being heard in American living rooms (I remember that because it was my first year in high school and I brought up this guy bin Laden, who I had seen on TV that August, back when he was just "a Saudi terrorist in Afghanistan--the Taliban had just taken power in Afghanistan--pledging eternal hostility to the United States), and they just couldn't remember his name or know how to spell those names.

And the "intruder" managed all that without ever even disturbing the spider web on the window sill!:doh: Simply Amazing!

 

[BBB167893]

LinasK, have I got something for you!

womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/07/factual-evidence-in-jonbent-ramsey-case.html

Read towards the bottom.

It's weird, I was in a taxi today (let's just say that I know how those "Taxicab Confession" tv shows work now) and the driver and I were talking up this case. She was a lot more knowledgable than most people. But I always find it odd, yet somehow rewarding, to be able to outline my points.

This case is often referred to as a miscarriage of justice. It wasn't a miscarriage; it was an ABORTION!

 

[angelwngs]

LinasK, have I got something for you!

womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/07/factual-evidence-in-jonbent-ramsey-case.html

Read towards the bottom.

It's weird, I was in a taxi today (let's just say that I know how those "Taxicab Confession" tv shows work now) and the driver and I were talking up this case. She was a lot more knowledgable than most people. But I always find it odd, yet somehow rewarding, to be able to outline my points.

This case is often referred to as a miscarriage of justice. It wasn't a miscarriage; it was an ABORTION!

I'm not LinasK, but this aritcle is dead on the money, IMO!

SD, Thanks for Sharing!

 

[BBB167893]

Heck, come one, come all!

Ladies and gentlemen, good evening! You're about to learn that seeing is believing!

 

[cynic]

You obviously didn't read the study that I posted. It deals directly with your study. They examined the findings of Oorschot and Jones (your study) and redid the experiment. They found their study lacking and concluded "Our data do not support the conclusion that secondary transfer will compromise DNA typ-ing results under typical forensic conditions."

Just because their study yielded different results does not invalidate the Oorschot and Jones study. It does indicate a conflict between the two, with the possibility that the Ladd study ("your study") could be "lacking" equally likely.

Here is some more for you.
"[FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]There are published studies that document secondary transfer of DNA (in quantities that can be detected by STR tests) from items that people simply touched to other items."
"[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1] To support the theory that his DNA could have been transferred innocently to the instruments of murder, Greineder commissioned a study. Forensic scientists Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, of Technical Associates (an independent laboratory in Ventura, California) simulated the sequence of events posited by the defense theory: A man wiped his face with a towel, then a woman wiped her face with the towel, then gloves and a knife like those used in the murder were rubbed against the woman’s face. DNA tests on the gloves and knife revealed a mixture of DNA from the man and woman — exactly what was found in the Greineder case.7 Taylor was allowed to present his findings to the jury. Although the jury ultimately convicted Greineder (there was other incriminating evidence besides the DNA) the case is a good example of how the amazing sensitivity of contemporary DNA profiling methods facilitate a plausible explanation for what might at first seem to be a damning DNA test result."
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698...e540074c156?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,forensic
[FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[LI_Mom]

womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/07/factual-evidence-in-jonbent-ramsey-case.html

!

From the link:

Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.



Anyone know if this is true? I never heard this before.

 

[Jayce]

Just because their study yielded different results does not invalidate the Oorschot and Jones study. It does indicate a conflict between the two, with the possibility that the Ladd study ("your study") could be "lacking" equally likely.

Here is some more for you.
"[FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]There are published studies that document secondary transfer of DNA (in quantities that can be detected by STR tests) from items that people simply touched to other items."
"[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1] To support the theory that his DNA could have been transferred innocently to the instruments of murder, Greineder commissioned a study. Forensic scientists Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, of Technical Associates (an independent laboratory in Ventura, California) simulated the sequence of events posited by the defense theory: A man wiped his face with a towel, then a woman wiped her face with the towel, then gloves and a knife like those used in the murder were rubbed against the woman’s face. DNA tests on the gloves and knife revealed a mixture of DNA from the man and woman — exactly what was found in the Greineder case.7 Taylor was allowed to present his findings to the jury. Although the jury ultimately convicted Greineder (there was other incriminating evidence besides the DNA) the case is a good example of how the amazing sensitivity of contemporary DNA profiling methods facilitate a plausible explanation for what might at first seem to be a damning DNA test result."
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698...e540074c156?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,forensic
[FONT=HELVETICA,ARIAL,SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

That is an interesting article. Its clear that there are, indeed, conflicting studies.

 

[BBB167893]

Is that so shocking?

 

[angelwngs]

From the link:

Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.



Anyone know if this is true? I never heard this before.

Actually, what I think this was referring to was at bedtime, prior to her being killed.

 

[beezojones]

Yes the DNA changes my theory compl