tDNA on clothing, DNA expert and 2 cases studies

trasha griffith pictured below is an example of an anti-science denialist

trasha wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

this is her qualifications on forensic evidence

Contact me at: triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com ........ Based on the wildly popular true crime forum Websleuths.com (www.websleuths.com/forums) and Forums for Justice.org (www.forumsforjustice.org/forums) this radio show is unlike any other show you have heard before. Each week Tricia's True Crime Radio features several intriguing true crime cases. Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org. She brings her unique brand of broadcasting, knowledge and (at times) humor her Websleuths radio Websleuths radio, True Crime, Current Events, Always Discussed with Common Sense!!! The opinions expressed on Tricia's True Crime Radio are those of the hosts and guests re

unfortunately not a single RDI poster on websleuth, forumsforjustice, topix, crimeshots reddit has any training and qualifications in forensic science.
RDI posters on various forums forumsforjustice websleuth etc claim the tDNA is not evidence of an intruder, there is no evidence of an intruder. even Kolar claims this, even though Kolar is NOT a DNA expert.

earlier I had mentioned Alie Berrelez

Results: Solved. Investigators taking a new look at the unsolved 1993 kidnapping and murder of 5-year-old Alie Berrelez matched a DNA sample to neighbor Nick Stofer, ending a saga for the little girl's family. As advancements in technology emerged, evidence gathered in the case has been re-submitted for additional testing and comparison, police said. On Feb. 8, 2011, several items of evidence were submitted to the CBI for new DNA testing. A CBI agent developed a complete DNA profile from an area of Alie’s underwear and from the waistband of her underwear. That DNA profile matched the DNA profile of Stofer. "We had to wait 18 years for forensic science to catch up to the evidence we had on hand," said Englewood police Chief John Collins, announcing the end to the Berrelez case on Tuesday. "It was unequivocally his DNA in her underwear and it had no business being there." At the time of the abduction, Stofer lived in the Englewood apartment complex where Alie lived with her mother and two brothers. He had been there for three weeks prior to the abduction and abruptly moved to California just five days after Alie’s abduction and murder. He made the reservations for his flight on the morning of May 18, the day Alie disappeared. Nicholas Randolph Stofer was a focus of the investigtion within days when her 3 year old brother told the police "the old man" took her and then took them to Nick Stopher's apartment and said that was where "the old man" lived. Detectives traveled to Redlands, Calif. to take blood and hair samples from Stofer. However, DNA testing did not exist at that time. Detectives learned during the investigation that as a teenager Stofer frequently partied in Deer Creek Canyon.

justice makes use of science and science is about applying the same standard. if tDNA on Allie's waisteband proves Stofer murdered Allie, based on the theory that Stofer directly handled the waisteband transferring his DNA via skin or sweat onto Allie's wasteband, then applying the same scientific standards, there is a scientific basis to say an intruder handled both Jonbenet's panties and her longjohns.

ultimately what an RDI poster thinks about this is irrelevant. only posters with these kinds of credentials can opine as to the significance of this finding

CONSULTING AND EDUCATION IN FORENSIC SCIENCE

Norah Rudin

View Norah's curriculum vitae.

Norah Rudin holds a B.A. from Pomona College and a Ph.D. from Brandeis University. She is a member of the California Association of Criminalists, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a Diplomate of the American Board of Criminalistics. After completing a post-doctoral fellowship at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, she served three years as a full-time consultant/technical leader for the California Department of Justice DNA Laboratory and has also served as consulting technical leader for the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement DNA Laboratory, the San Francisco Crime Laboratory DNA Section, and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department DNA Laboratory. Dr. Rudin has co-authored An Introduction to DNA Forensic Analysis and Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. She is also the author of the Dictionary of Modern Biology. Dr. Rudin has taught a variety of general forensic and forensic DNA courses for the University of California at Berkeley extension and on-line. She is frequently invited to speak at various legal symposia and forensic conferences, and recently served a guberatorial appointment to the Virginia Department of Forensic Science Scientific Advisory Committee. She is currently co-chair of the Constitution Project Committee on DNA Collection. She remains active as an independent consultant and expert witness in forensic DNA.


Dr. Rudin and Mr. Inman have formed the non-profit company SCIEG (Scientific Collaboration, Innovation, and Education) for the purpose of developing Lab Retriever, a software tool to perform likelihood ratios with a probability of drop-out, and more generally to further forensic science education in general.

On July 11, 2005, a 62-year-old former nurse named Gary Earl Leiterman was brought to trial, charged with the first-degree murder of Jane Louise Mixer,[35][36] who had been considered the possible third victim of the Michigan Murderer, despite the modus operandi of her murder being significantly different to that of any of the other victims linked to the perpetrator.[231] He was convicted of Mixer's murder on July 22, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

Leiterman had lived 20 miles from the University of Michigan at the time of Mixer's murder, and had never been considered a suspect in any of the Michigan Murders. He was convicted of the murder based upon advancements in DNA analysis leading to this cold case being reopened in 2001, and the discovery of his DNA upon the victim's stockings. This DNA had not originated from blood or semen, but from either sweat, saliva, or skin cells.

Gary Leiterman did appeal this conviction, but his conviction was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2007.[232]

in other words, they tested murder victim Jane Louise Mixer clothing items, using tDNA of clothing, they found DNA, they entered it into codis, it matched Gary Leiterman who was convicted and sent to prison based on this.

A DNA expert opined that since the tDNA on Mixer stocking matches Leiterman, he had direct contact with that article of clothing.

Apply same reasoning for Jonbenet . the intruder theory is tDNA + multiple fiber hair + shoeprint + ransom note all done by intruder.

at the end of the day who cares what trasha or any other RDI forum poster thinks. ultimately, LE and DA"s office are advised by DNA experts and trace evidence forensic scientists. their conclusion - intruder.

trasha griffith pictured above claims there is not scintilla of evidence to support an intruder. given that the tDNA in allie bereliz panties and tDNA found on Jane Mixer links them to their killer, yes tDNA found on 2 separate articles of clothing is evidence, and DNA experts agree with this. Under Daubert only their opinion counts as expert witness testimony. if RDI really want justice, they should respect the testimony of an expert witness, which they do not. they are a lynch mob. that's all.

to say tDNA in Allie clothing is evidence, and tDNA on Jane Mixer is evidence, but tDNA found on Jonbenet is NO evidence of an intruder is an example of special pleading

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

Examples

A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter

Example: I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.

claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly

Example: Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.

In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, as it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies.[3]

In medieval philosophy, it was not assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts an assumption of existential import.

Tricia and RDI are a lynch mob.