Discussion
#1
Got this in email, was asked to post and say it is from "Dave"  (an old-time poster)

I watched the CBS hatchet job on Burke. This was nothing more than a
huge exercise in group confirmation bias --- as you yourself may have
concluded.

snip

post from a contributor, if you would be so kind. Please feel free to
say it's from "Dave" if you wish.

-------------------------------

On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, “pseudo-expert”
Henry Lee [1] performed DNA tests on some brand new underwear fresh off
the shelf. The test consisted of:

1) Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that
contained organic material.

2) Cutting out the identified regions.

3) Submitting the cuttings for DNA testing.

It was reported that female DNA was found.

This is an incompetently designed test.

What should have been done instead:

1) Randomly drop colored solution or other easily identifiable markings
no larger than 0.5 inches in diameter on the crotches of the underwear
--- no more than a few such drops per piece of underwear, similar in
size and distribution as the blood spots found on JonBenét's underwear.

2) Cut out these identified regions.

3) Submit the cuttings for testing for the presence of male DNA, not
female DNA.

Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that contain
organic material is a stupid mistake that shows the sloppiness that
“pseudo-expert” Henry Lee brings to many of his cases. The relevant
question is not: “Can we find DNA somewhere on these panties?” but
rather: “How likely is it that a spot of blood would land on a region
that contains DNA?”

Claiming that finding female DNA somewhere on the panties is significant
to the case is just another stupid and unfounded conclusion of
“pseudo-expert” Henry Lee. Throughout the history of the garment
industry, females dominate production. The likelihood of male DNA
landing on garments compared to the likelihood of female DNA is far, far
lower. Again, the question isn't “Can we find DNA somewhere on these
panties?” but rather: “How likely is it that any DNA found on the fresh
underwear is male?”

Even though this test is incompetently designed, the approximate
likelihood of finding male DNA in a region of 0.5 inches in diameter
that is randomly chosen can be confidently stated as ZERO, based on the
information provided in the show regarding this irrelevant test.
Nevertheless, now that this incompetently designed test has been not
only performed, but publicized in the popular press, it should be
replaced by a relevant test like the one that I have described above,
performed by competent personnel at an independent laboratory.

[1] The label "pseudo-expert" is an accurate description, in my opinion,
of Henry Lee from: STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 3RD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
COUNTY OF WAYNE
BURKE RAMSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC, JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A.
JAMES KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B.BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and
HENRY C. LEE, Defendants.
Reply
#2
And part of an email from someone I will call Statistician...

Statistician writes:

I agree with you that the DNA on the longjohns by itself is a very weak argument.  However, the DNA on the longjohns in conjunction with the DNA found in the panties being "consistent" show  that  an intruder did the crime.  Although Mary Lacy is getting a lot of flak because of the Boulder Daily Camera article last November she had a very good reason to exonerate the Ramseys.  See the link below from Paula Woodwards website.  

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...34645.jpeg

Their is a 1 in 6200 chance that the two DNA samples from the top right waistband of the long johns and underware belong to two different people.  Or another way of saying it is that there is a 99.98% chance that the DNA from both places on the victim's clothing belong to the same person.  On top of this, the DNA under JBR finger nails is "consistent" with the DNA in the long johns and underware.  Its all these small pieces of evidence that when added up make a very large argument that an outside male intruder commited this crime.  

I ........ deal with Statistics a lot.  The same thing applies here.  You have the DNA in the long johns, panties, and finger nails that are very weak.  Each one by itself doesn't say very much.  However, the fact that all these DNA samples are "consistent" with each other and don't belong to any of the Ramseys or extended family members (this was given as fact in WHYD) makes it a very high probability that they belong to a foreign "male" intruder. The best we can say is "consistent" and not "match" since the samples were weak, but still when we take all this information together they give a strong argument.
Reply
#3
That is wonderful! Do we have the other 4 pages?
Reply
#4
Statistician is not on the forum and is apparently sending (via email) only what he feels comfortable sharing. Maybe in time he will join us and share more.
Reply
#5
Roger that.

Because these need to be published! #thetruthisoutthere
Reply
#6
In truth I have a LOT of documents that - - I don't think they would solve this if published but would add to the overwhelming mess of files out there. People would be discouraged if they had to read the junk I seem to hoard and store in various places.

I think this forum - unfinished as it is - shows the enormity of the possible files you would see if everyone published all they had.
Reply
#7
Hhahaha, well documents like this certainly facilitate solving the case. They contravene the conventional wisdom in the press about the validity of DNA results. You should collate, prioritize and distribute what you can!

I love this forum for that reason!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)