Another Trump Rape Surfaces

[Toni]

Nonsense. DNA from semen stains have been identified in samples as old as 50 years:

Of the 14 semen stains tested, 12 out of 14 stains (86%) produced strong, positive test results for acid phosphatase (including a semen stain almost 50 years old!).
...
Full profiles (10 loci) were obtained from 18 of the 22 samples (82%) (e.g. blood, saliva, semen and vaginal samples) as follows: C-1, C-2, C10, C-11, R-7, R-8, R-9,R-10, S-2, S-3, F-1, F-2, A-2, A-3, Fr-2, Fr-4, Red-1 and Red-2.
b. Partial profiles [types were obtained at most loci] were obtained from 2 of the 22 samples (9%) (e.g. one semen and one bloodstain): (a) Fr-1
[bloodstain made in 1974 and held at room temperature] and (b) Fr-3 [one semen stain made in 1975 and held under a variety of conditions].
c. Only the amelogenin locus, which is the smallest locus of this multiplex, was noted in 2 of the 22 samples (9%): (a) A-1 [semen stain made in 1952 and held at room temperature] and (b) C-3 [bloodstain made in 1975 and held frozen/refrigerated or at room temperature]
...
1. Most samples [82%] from this study yielded full profiles. Given the range of ages of these stains and the various storage conditions in which these stains were maintained, it is clear that DNA is a very stable molecule and it is quite possible to obtain a complete DNA profile from samples that are quite old. Full profiles (10 loci) were obtained on samples that were more than 25 years old and which were described as being stored at room temperature.

And here's a study showing: Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains, where the attempt was to wash out the semen.

And here's one on the persistence of DNA on clothes after exposure to water for different time periods-a study on bathtub, pond, and river (also evidencing the durability of DNA even in cases where clothing has been submerged for months in a river or pond and exposed to nature).

And DNA from burned remains of US soldiers in Viet Nam have been used to identify the remains and return them to the US and their families for burial.

 

[Derec]

Nonsense. DNA from semen stains have been identified in samples as old as 50 years:

Two things are wrong with your premature exclamation of "nonsense".
1. There was no evidence of semen found on Jean's dress.

The results note that "acid phosphatase activity, a presumptive indication of the presence of semen, was not detected in any of thirty-three fluorescent stains tested on the dress." However, samples tested from the dress sleeve contained genetic material that analysts described as coming from at least one "male," according to the filing.

It would therefore presumably be DNA from skin contact which transfers far less DNA and that DNA is outside of cells and thus far more vulnerable to environmental degradation.
2. Read your own paper. There were laboratory samples and mostly refrigerated or frozen. Even when kept at room temperature, they were not just hanging in somebody's closet. And they certainly weren't worn for a photo shoot!

"After Trump sexually assaulted me, I took the black dress I had been wearing and hung it in my closet. I only wore it once since then and that was at the photoshoot for the New York Magazine article about my book," Carroll said in a statement Thursday.

And here's a study showing: Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains, where the attempt was to wash out the semen.

Again, no evidence of semen was found. Touch DNA is a lot more ephemeral. I find it a lot more likely the four DNA donors came from some people at the photo shoot than from the alleged encounter 25 years ago. Not that non-semen DNA on a sleeve would prove or even be evidence of sexual contact, much less rape.

 

[Derec]

And DNA from burned remains of US soldiers in Viet Nam have been used to identify the remains and return them to the US and their families for burial.

Jean Carrol did not keep burned remains in her closet for 25 years. She kept a dress that may or may not have been touched by Trump.

 

[Derec]

It's quite likely that they recover enough DNA to perform a good analysis to determine DNA in the semen sample left on the dress.

There was no semen sample.

As for your talk about loci, etc. I know you're smart and read things on the internet. My degree is in molecular biology. It's more than possible that they could identify who the semen belonged to.

There is a lot of initial DNA in a semen load. Far less is transferred by mere touch. And note that she wore the dress to a recent photo shoot. Plenty of opportunity to pick up fresh touch DNA then.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's quite likely that they recover enough DNA to perform a good analysis to determine DNA in the semen sample left on the dress.

There was no semen sample.

As for your talk about loci, etc. I know you're smart and read things on the internet. My degree is in molecular biology. It's more than possible that they could identify who the semen belonged to.

There is a lot of initial DNA in a semen load. Far less is transferred by mere touch. And note that she wore the dress to a recent photo shoot. Plenty of opportunity to pick up fresh touch DNA then.

Derec, I do not disbelieve you about sample type. I am open-minded. Could you provide a link that proves no semen sample? Are you sure it's touch dna, not something else?

Are you sure she wore the dress? That part sounds like RW propaganda. Do you have a RELIABLE link to that? Normally, there'd be a dress added to evidence, not worn....

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Two things are wrong with your premature exclamation of "nonsense".

One thing wrong with your attempt to claim something wrong with my "premature exclamation of 'nonsense'." Can you spot it?

The techniques are quite good these days, but they are not miraculous.

They don't need to be.

They would have to be for usable amounts of DNA to exist after 25 years on a garment.

Nonsense. DNA from semen stains have been identified in samples as old as 50 years...

And the rest of what I posted in regard to other forms of DNA transferrable stains (such as blood and, yes, "touch" DNA) and the studies regarding washing of clothes and submersion of clothes for months in ponds and the like not having much of an effect on the degradation of DNA profiling, etc.

Toni had stated:

Not sure if you're being funny/ironic but it is rather amazing what they can do with DNA samples, even ones that are extremely degraded.

You responded:

The techniques are quite good these days, but they are not miraculous.

Spotted it yet?

It hinges, once again, on your use of the word "miraculous" and then what you had been referring to in relation to that word.

 

[Derec]

Derec, I do not disbelieve you about sample type. I am open-minded. Could you provide a link that proves no semen sample?

It's from the CNN article I linked to in post #262.

The results note that "acid phosphatase activity, a presumptive indication of the presence of semen, was not detected in any of thirty-three fluorescent stains tested on the dress." However, samples tested from the dress sleeve contained genetic material that analysts described as coming from at least one "male," according to the filing.

Are you sure it's touch dna, not something else?

I am not positive, but if it was another bodily fluid like blood or saliva surely they would have reported that.

Are you sure she wore the dress? That part sounds like RW propaganda. Do you have a RELIABLE link to that? Normally, there'd be a dress added to evidence, not worn....

That too is from the same CNN article. According to them, Jean herself said she wore the dress in question to a photo shoot.

"After Trump sexually assaulted me, I took the black dress I had been wearing and hung it in my closet. I only wore it once since then and that was at the photoshoot for the New York Magazine article about my book," Carroll said in a statement Thursday.

I know Trump is very much a hated figure here, but surely you must admit that Jean is nuttier than squirrel shit. The whole accusation and her behavior (for example that Anderson Cooper interview where she talked about sexy rape) is just weird man. Just because she accuses somebody you hate does not mean you have to believe her.

 

[Derec]

It hinges, once again, on your use of the word "miraculous" and then what you had been referring to in relation to that word.

As I said, the techniques are very good, but I doubt they can reliably test 25 year old touch DNA (because that's probably what it is) sample that has been treated as lackadaisically as hanging it in a closet and wearing it to a photo shoot.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, it's refreshing that you are now at least talking about DNA and an investigation instead of just believing the man did bad thing just because he is accused.

 

[Toni]

It's from the CNN article I linked to in post #262.

Are you sure it's touch dna, not something else?

I am not positive, but if it was another bodily fluid like blood or saliva surely they would have reported that.

Are you sure she wore the dress? That part sounds like RW propaganda. Do you have a RELIABLE link to that? Normally, there'd be a dress added to evidence, not worn....

That too is from the same CNN article. According to them, Jean herself said she wore the dress in question to a photo shoot.

"After Trump sexually assaulted me, I took the black dress I had been wearing and hung it in my closet. I only wore it once since then and that was at the photoshoot for the New York Magazine article about my book," Carroll said in a statement Thursday.

I know Trump is very much a hated figure here, but surely you must admit that Jean is nuttier than squirrel shit. The whole accusation and her behavior (for example that Anderson Cooper interview where she talked about sexy rape) is just weird man. Just because she accuses somebody you hate does not mean you have to believe her.

Can you please explain again why you continue to use Jean as the name of the victim in this case? It is not the name that she uses herself. It would be much more appropriate and respectful to refer to the victim as Ms. Carroll.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it's refreshing that you are now at least talking about DNA and an investigation instead of just believing the man did bad thing just because he is accused.

If my daughter said she had been raped, I wouldn't ask for DNA evidence from her.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Can you please explain again why you continue to use Jean as the name of the victim in this case? It is not the name that she uses herself. It would be much more appropriate and respectful to refer to the victim as Ms. Carroll.

That's exactly he uses her first name. He doesn't want to think of her as a real person.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It hinges, once again, on your use of the word "miraculous" and then what you had been referring to in relation to that word.

As I said, the techniques are very good, but I doubt they can reliably test 25 year old touch DNA

Again, that's not what you said. You said:

The techniques are quite good these days, but they are not miraculous. They would have to be for usable amounts of DNA to exist after 25 years on a garment.

That is false. And the assertion that it is "touch" DNA has zero bearing on the issue.

The only thing that matters is that they were able to retrieve viable DNA from the dress, so matching it to Trump's DNA would be a matter of him supplying his DNA.

If they match, then he's the one who touched the dress and he's lying about not knowing her.

 

[Toni]

And DNA from burned remains of US soldiers in Viet Nam have been used to identify the remains and return them to the US and their families for burial.

Jean Carrol did not keep burned remains in her closet for 25 years. She kept a dress that may or may not have been touched by Trump.

Her name is not Jean Carroll. She goes by E. Jean Carroll.


Burned remains that are 30+ years old or older have far more degraded DNA than would any sample left in a in a closet for 25 years.

 

[Toni]

Can you please explain again why you continue to use Jean as the name of the victim in this case? It is not the name that she uses herself. It would be much more appropriate and respectful to refer to the victim as Ms. Carroll.

That's exactly he uses her first name. He doesn't want to think of her as a real person.

I am aware. I'm just not letting the issue and disrespect slide.

 

[southernhybrid]

Who needs DNA evidence? I would believe almost any woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a man who brags about being able to "grab them by the pussy". Why would anyone believe the word of a lying, sexist asshole, over the word of a woman? It takes a lot of courage to make a claim that you were raped, especially when the rapist is a powerful, white male. That is why most women never report they've been raped. It wouldn't surprise me if there were even more women who were sexually assaulted by Trump. Even if they weren't raped, grabbing women by the pussy is a form of sexual assault. But, as Trump once said, he can get away with grabbing women by the pussy. He can probably even get away with shooting someone on 5th Ave. Who knew this was possible prior to Trump?

 

[Derec]

Who needs DNA evidence?

Obviously not you feminists. Didn't the disgraced Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong say something very similar when the DNA tests came back negative?

I would believe almost any woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a man who brags about being able to "grab them by the pussy".

That would be a mistake. Even if somebody were guilty of raping person A, that doesn't mean that person B is not just trying to cash in on his reputation.

It takes a lot of courage to make a claim that you were raped,

It really doesn't. What is Trump going to do to her? And the upside is that she got many metric shit-tons of free publicity, got invited to cable talk shows, is selling way more copies of her misandrist book "What Do We Need Men For?" etc. More than enough motive to make a false accusation.

especially when the rapist is a powerful, white male.

More sexist/racist prejudice.

That is why most women never report they've been raped.

Tawana Brawley reported. Crystal Magnum reported. Wanetta Gibson reported. Danmell Ndonye reported. Jackie Coakley reported. Emma "Mattress Girl" Sulkowitz reported. As did many others.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were even more women who were sexually assaulted by Trump.

Even if there were, that doesn't mean Jean was.

Even if they weren't raped, grabbing women by the pussy is a form of sexual assault.

Not if they let him do it. Consensual pussy-grabbing is not sexual assault. You conveniently ignore that part of his bragging. And of course, for all we know all of it could be just braggadocio.

 

[Derec]

Well, it's refreshing that you are now at least talking about DNA and an investigation instead of just believing the man did bad thing just because he is accused.

If my daughter said she had been raped, I wouldn't ask for DNA evidence from her.

But EJC is none of ours daughter. By that same token, if your son was accused of rape, would you not want that he be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You would certainly not want his accuser to be believed without evidence.

 

[Derec]

That's exactly he uses her first name. He doesn't want to think of her as a real person.

Bullshit. And how does using a first name dehumanize somebody? Not to mention that when I used her last name as well, Toni still objected that I omitted her first initial "E". But if it'll make you and Toni happy, I'll use "EJC" in the future. Deal?

 

[Toni]

That's exactly he uses her first name. He doesn't want to think of her as a real person.

Bullshit. And how does using a first name dehumanize somebody? Not to mention that when I used her last name as well, Toni still objected that I omitted her first initial "E". But if it'll make you and Toni happy, I'll use "EJC" in the future. Deal?

Sure, Darren.

What? That’s not your name? But it’s what I prefer to call you! Isn’t that what counts????


Of course it isn’t. Given just how frequently you use the familiar names of women and black people who are not among your friends and acquaintances and do NOT treat white males with such false familiarity, it is difficult to see your refusal to afford a stranger the basic respect of properly using their family name as is the custom in this society as anything other than an intentional sign of disrespect.

I don’t think that bothers you much but it might bother you to know that showing such disrespect makes any of your arguments or points seem petty and insignificant, if not outright wrong headed—and you, as well. It makes you sound as though your opinions are based on overly emotional and irrational fear and dislike rather than careful consideration.