Mark Beckner provides indirect evidence of CBI vs BPD; science vs detectives

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Mark Beckner provides indirect evidence of CBI vs BPD; science vs detectives

Post by redpill on Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:25 pm

I dont know if anyone reads my blog but

recently Mark Beckner had a reddit Q&A and I think his answers are revealing

• On possible sources of unidentified DNA on JonBenet's clothing: "Manufacturing process is one. Interactions with other people is another. Intentional placement is another. Belongs to an intruder is another. Yes, you can often tell where DNA comes from. In this case, it is small enough that it is difficult to tell. CBI thought it was either sweat or saliva."

• "The suspect is the donator of that unknown DNA, and until you can prove otherwise, I think that's the way you've got to look at it."

• On whether there might have been an intruder the night of the murder: "Most investigators do not believe there was a legitimate point of entry. It is unknown how an intruder may have gotten in. Lou Smit always believed it was the basement window, but we did not agree with him, as the dust and spider web were undisturbed."


we don't have the original scientific forensic reports, but we can infer what they must have said based on Beckner's statements.

CBI stands for Colorado Bureau of Investigation. They employ forensic SCIENTISTS to look at SCIENTIFIC evidence and use SCIENCE to evaluate and reconstruct the events.

Detectives follow leads, etc.

we do not have the original reports but we can infer what they said
[quote=CBI]
Yes, you can often tell where DNA comes from. In this case, it is small enough that it is difficult to tell. CBI thought it was either sweat or saliva.
[/quote]

CBI undoubtedly filed a report, not only evaluating the DNA evidence but providing the most likely science based scenario.

The DNA most likely came from saliva or sweat. The most likely reason according to science
• "The suspect is the donator of that unknown DNA, and until you can prove otherwise, I think that's the way you've got to look at it."

it is unlikely that the best scientific explanation for saliva or sweat containing same unknown DNA in 3 different locations is secondary transfer or manufacturing.

The CBI scientists no doubt filled out a report to this effect. CBI obviously thought the DNA was scientifically valid, despite what James Kolar said about 6 Dna profiles, if their official science based report said they think the source of DNA was saliva or DNA.

Mark Beckner also stated on reddit that the handwriting experts were unable to identify Patsy based on handwriting, and that forensic linguists Donald Fosters conclusions were not scientifically reliable.


Based on SCIENCE Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy made the correct decision.

the detectives provide reasons for intruder, including Ramsey lack of corporation and
detectives wrote:
• On whether there might have been an intruder the night of the murder: "Most investigators do not believe there was a legitimate point of entry. It is unknown how an intruder may have gotten in. Lou Smit always believed it was the basement window, but we did not agree with him, as the dust and spider web were undisturbed."

based on science, intruder
based on detective work, RDI.

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1479
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum