A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[otg]

How could this happen?
Perhaps, since we know ML missed the fact that there was other tDNA at the scene on the instruments of JB's death, according to Kolar, perhaps she also missed the English class addressing:
A copulative conjunction is a conjunction that denotes an addition, a cause, a consequence, or a supposition: as,
• "He and I shall not dispute; for, if he has any choice, I shall readily grant it."
The copulatives include: and, as, both, because, even, for, if, that, then, since, seeing, so.

For if ML missed the class on copulative conjunctions, then she would not understand the lab report. If JMK was not in Boulder, then he’s excluded from being a suspect. .
Just an explanation for ML decisons? :moo:

:waitasec:

Oh, my! "Copulative conjunctions?" :blushing: Isn't that another term for conjugal visits? :innocent:

:dunno:

 

[UKGuy]

:waitasec:

Oh, my! "Copulative conjunctions?" :blushing: Isn't that another term for conjugal visits? :innocent:

:dunno:

otg,
Oh and I thought it referred to two stars meeting on an astronomical path, where meeting was the copula or linking verb, as in Venus is in line with X?

So if ML missed the class on "Copulative conjunctions" does this mean she had a sheltered upbringing?

 

[redheadedgal]

bump!

 

[questfortrue]

:bump:


Location of the tDNA from Kolar:
Kolar states this tDNA was also found in the waistband and seams of the underwear (panties.)

He quotes Lacy in FF - Lacy reported that the new technology of Touch DNA revealed that the perpetrator believed responsible for the kidnap and murder of JonBenét had also handled the leggings (long-johns) worn by her on the night of her abduction. DNA originally found in her underwear now matched microscopic traces of male DNA found in the interior waistband of these leggings.

 

[BOESP]

Imo, the fiber evidence is as conclusive as this tDNA is. I'd still like to know if any Ramsey DNA was found on the long johns.

 

[Anti-K]

Imo, the fiber evidence is as conclusive as this tDNA is. I'd still like to know if any Ramsey DNA was found on the long johns.

According to Kolar no Ramsey DNA was found on the leggings.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

According to Kolar no Ramsey DNA was found on the leggings.
...

AK

Did he mean no Ramsey DNA found with the unknown tDNA or what? (rhetorical question)

I doubt the long johns were tested in their entirety. I just can't see this meaning a lot until it is sourced.

 

[Anti-K]

Did he mean no Ramsey DNA found with the unknown tDNA or what? (rhetorical question)

I doubt the long johns were tested in their entirety. I just can't see this meaning a lot until it is sourced.

I won’t have time til Tuesday to look for a source, but the claim was made by Kolar during one of his interviews. I can’t remember if it was on youtube, or an interview with tricia. I might have it documented on my computer.

Even without Kolar, we know that there has been no mention (by ANYONE) of any Ramsey DNA being found on the leggings. Kolar tells us Ramsey DNA was on the Barbie night gown. If it was also on the leggings than I think he would have mentioned it.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

I won’t have time til Tuesday to look for a source, but the claim was made by Kolar during one of his interviews. I can’t remember if it was on youtube, or an interview with tricia. I might have it documented on my computer.

Even without Kolar, we know that there has been no mention (by ANYONE) of any Ramsey DNA being found on the leggings. Kolar tells us Ramsey DNA was on the Barbie night gown. If it was also on the leggings than I think he would have mentioned it.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Presumably this means you do not know if BR's touch-dna was found on JonBenet?

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Presumably this means you do not know if BR's touch-dna was found on JonBenet?

There is no such thing as “BR’s touch-dna.” You mean BR’s DNA. “Touch-dna” simply refers to the method used to collect the DNA. It’s still just DNA. Anyway...

There have been no reports regarding DNA being found on the victim except for that which was found under her fingernails. Burke’s and Mrs Ramsey’s DNA was found on the Barbie night gown.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

The DNA under her fingernails was found to be degraded. The FACT that the coroner failed to use sterile nail clippers (a different clipper for each finger) as well as the findings that he may not have sterilized the clipper BETWEEN autopsies pretty much rules out ANY consideration of the fingernail DNA. It would never have been admissible as evidence because of that.

 

[Anti-K]

The DNA under her fingernails was found to be degraded. The FACT that the coroner failed to use sterile nail clippers (a different clipper for each finger) as well as the findings that he may not have sterilized the clipper BETWEEN autopsies pretty much rules out ANY consideration of the fingernail DNA. It would never have been admissible as evidence because of that.

You’re confusing contamination with degradation (or, vice versa).

Degradation is not an unusual finding Degradation simply means that the DNA sample had deteriorated – the DNA strands were breaking up, becoming fragmented (this is exactly what happens, in a precise manner, when a sample is processed – it is fragmented). Degradation most often occurs because of environmental factors. It can affect the results but it shouldn’t prevent the findings from being acceptable to the Court.

It was commonly speculated that the fingernail samples may have been CONTAMINATED – NOT DEGRADED.

Contamination means that foreign DNA was introduced to the crime sample at some point during collection, storage or analysis. There is nothing other than speculation to say that the partial profiles reported by Kolar et.al were the result of contamination.

The CODIS sample was almost certainly degraded.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Responding to SD: http://tinyurl.com/oy3peo6

SD: I should think that would be fairly obvious, Anti-k: JB's DNA was also in the underwear, but IT was fresh. It didn't take leaps and bounds of technology to find its markers. Thus, it's not a big leap to realize that the two were not deposited at the same time.

AK: I’m sorry to say that I believe that you’re understanding of all things DNA is very, very poor. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it makes discussion on this the topic extremely awkward and difficult.

Degradation has nothing to do with age, and the size of the sample, the type, etc has nothing to do with age. DNA in and of itself cannot be date-stamped. That means that it could have been old, but it also could have been, like jbr’s blood, fresh. This is basic, kindergarten type stuff, but your claim (see above quote) shows that you don’t understand this. That makes discussion on this the topic extremely awkward and difficult.

FACT 1: DNA in and of itself cannot be date-stamped.

FACT 2: degradation is not an indicator of age (if degradation was an indicator of age than FACT 1 would be false).

These FACTS tell us 1) that you are wrong, and 2) that you don’t properly understand the basic, kindergarten type stuff.
for real
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

In the same post http://tinyurl.com/oy3peo6 you wrote that you don’t think that there is a secondary transfer theory that I would find reasonable. This is an opinion that I actually understand, even though I think it is wrong.

I can’t think of a – as I put it - reasonable and believable secondary transfer theory. That doesn’t mean that one does not exist, and it is not an argument against the existence of one. It just means that I’m still waiting.
I have put serious thought and considerable time trying to think of one. I –admittedly, not so much anymore – give consideration to secondary transfer theories that have been proposed by others (many people are smarter than me and more imaginative then me).

Sadly, IMO, the majority of secondary transfer theories that are often presented seem to demonstrate a misunderstanding of (what is known about) DNA transfer of this type.

Although it ultimately falls down, I think as a metaphor, the substitution of wet paint for tDNA serves well.
Your hands have wet paint on them that is your color. Everyone has their own color. If you get someone else’s wet paint (DNA) on your hand(s) then you have two colors of wet paint on your hand(s). When you touch something else, you usually transfer two colors. If you get wet paint of someone else’s color on your hand(s) then you usually transfer that color onto the next thing (or, person) thing that you touch.

So, what is the reasonable secondary transfer theory? Use the victim as vector. How did she manage to transfer paint of an unknown color into incriminating locations but not transfer her own color, or any color of wet paint that we know she would have been in contact with (the more frequent the contact, the more likely for transfer). Etc. and so on...
...



AK

 

[Anti-K]

In reference to SD’s post: http://tinyurl.com/neelzkj

SD wrote that “...an ACTUAL FBI agent, not an internet theorist) said in blunt terms that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the MORE likely they are to detect DNA which is not relevant to the crime at hand.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most FBI agents have trouble understanding DNA, too. It is something that should be of some concern. However, Sensitivities of the type that this FBI agent was almost certainly referring to would almost certainly utilize LCN. IOWs, samples even smaller than the tDNA and CODIS samples in the jbr case.

Still, it is an interesting topic. One of the ways that this concern can be lessened would be to only look for DNA in incriminating locations. This is already done.

If DNA is found in an incriminating location then we absolutely know for certain that it COULD have been left by the offender. Maybe it has nothing to do with the crime, but we can’t know that.

We have to investigate and be open to the possibility that trace evidence found in an incriminating location came from the offender because this is the exact location where an offender would leave trace evidence. If the trace evidence is small than it is small. There is nothing to say how much of this stuff an offender would leave behind. It could be a lot, it could be a little; it could be a very small amount.

Arguments of this type only tell us that the DNA did not necessarily come from the offender. We already know that (I hope!!). Arguments of this type don’t tell us that the DNA is more likely to be from “innocent” transfer. It only tells us that it could be. Once again: we already know that. However, the central point that arguments of this type fail to address is that this is DNA found in a location searched because it is a location where an offender would leave DNA.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Responding to SD: http://tinyurl.com/oy3peo6

SD: I should think that would be fairly obvious, Anti-k: JB's DNA was also in the underwear, but IT was fresh. It didn't take leaps and bounds of technology to find its markers. Thus, it's not a big leap to realize that the two were not deposited at the same time.

AK: I’m sorry to say that I believe that you’re understanding of all things DNA is very, very poor. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it makes discussion on this the topic extremely awkward and difficult.

There's nothing wrong with MY understanding, Anti-K. It's no more awkward or difficult than it needs to be.

Degradation has nothing to do with age, and the size of the sample, the type, etc has nothing to do with age. DNA in and of itself cannot be date-stamped. That means that it could have been old, but it also could have been, like jbr’s blood, fresh. This is basic, kindergarten type stuff, but your claim (see above quote) shows that you don’t understand this. That makes discussion on this the topic extremely awkward and difficult.

Number one, age DOES degrade DNA, if for no other reason than it allows more elements to come into contact with it. I believe it was Cyril Wecht, speaking on this case, who said that DNA is one of the quirkiest things around. Some samples can survive hundreds of years, others don't.

Moreover, Henry Lee, also speaking about this case, used basically the same argument: if someone bleeds on a surface, there's no way of knowing if someone came along ten minutes earlier and spit on the same spot.

I also understand this perfectly well: JB's DNA was not degraded; it was intact, unlike this sample. So, if you were right, then some other element would have to be introduced. That element broke down the unknown DNA, but didn't touch JB's. WHY?

FACT 1: DNA in and of itself cannot be date-stamped.

IDI sure ACTS like it can!

FACT 2: degradation is not an indicator of age (if degradation was an indicator of age than FACT 1 would be false).

These FACTS tell us 1) that you are wrong, and 2) that you don’t properly understand the basic, kindergarten type stuff.
for real

Strike ONE.

 

[BBB167893]

In reference to SD’s post: http://tinyurl.com/neelzkj

SD wrote that “...an ACTUAL FBI agent, not an internet theorist) said in blunt terms that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the MORE likely they are to detect DNA which is not relevant to the crime at hand.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most FBI agents have trouble understanding DNA, too. It is something that should be of some concern. However, Sensitivities of the type that this FBI agent was almost certainly referring to would almost certainly utilize LCN. IOWs, samples even smaller than the tDNA and CODIS samples in the jbr case.

This is the point: as Henry Lee said, DNA was irrelevant in half the cases it was found, BEFORE tDNA had even been thought of. Who is to say what LCN will be in the future?

 

[UKGuy]

There is no such thing as “BR’s touch-dna.” You mean BR’s DNA. “Touch-dna” simply refers to the method used to collect the DNA. It’s still just DNA. Anyway...

There have been no reports regarding DNA being found on the victim except for that which was found under her fingernails. Burke’s and Mrs Ramsey’s DNA was found on the Barbie night gown.
...

AK

Anti-K,

There is no such thing as “BR’s touch-dna.”

Really, are you suggesting the dna sample on JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown might be that of semen?

It’s still just DNA. Anyway...

uh,uh, so what distinguishes the dna samples found in JonBenet's underwear from say that found in her waistband?

There have been no reports regarding DNA being found on the victim except for that which was found under her fingernails.

That means you do not know, i.e. have no knowledge of the actual reports!

So we can link Burke Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey to the pink barbie nightgown deposited in the wine-cellar, any suggestions why the unidentified touch-dna donor never left a sample on the pink barbie nightgown?

.

 

[Anti-K]

There's nothing wrong with MY understanding, Anti-K. It's no more awkward or difficult than it needs to be.



Number one, age DOES degrade DNA, if for no other reason than it allows more elements to come into contact with it. I believe it was Cyril Wecht, speaking on this case, who said that DNA is one of the quirkiest things around. Some samples can survive hundreds of years, others don't.

Moreover, Henry Lee, also speaking about this case, used basically the same argument: if someone bleeds on a surface, there's no way of knowing if someone came along ten minutes earlier and spit on the same spot.

I also understand this perfectly well: JB's DNA was not degraded; it was intact, unlike this sample. So, if you were right, then some other element would have to be introduced. That element broke down the unknown DNA, but didn't touch JB's. WHY?



IDI sure ACTS like it can!



Strike ONE.

A point to consider is that we don’t know to what extent the CODIS sample was degraded. The missing markers could be from degradation, or they could be the result of sample size, or the nature of the sample (mixed) and even from damage that sometimes occurs during handling (collecting, etc), or a combination of these factors.

The difference in degradation between jbr’s DNA and the foreign DNA indicates that the DNA source was a fluid – it degraded as fluids tend to do. The degradation is consistent with saliva as source. DNA in saliva is from skin cells, is LOW per volume. Enzymes in the saliva enhance degradation of those cells.

Additionally, degradation would have been encouraged by the condition in which this foreign sample found itself - – inside the underwear, in the crotch, commingled with blood, between the legs, covered by panties, leggings, blanket, etc.

It isn’t age/time that degrades DNA, it’s the environmental conditions that it finds itself in.

Consider the issue of contamination. Contamination means that the foreign sample was introduced after the crime (during collection, storage, testing, etc). This means that the foreign sample would be FRESHER than jbr’s sample. If we could date a sample by degradation then degraded samples would necessarily be OLDER and could never be FRESHER.

BUT, degradation is not a date stamp.

AS for jbr’s sample - we don’t know that it was not effected by degradation as the sample size could have been sufficient to overcome it.

One thing to remember, although without significance for this conversation, is that when the blood was tested they used a 5 marker kit. The 13 CODIS markers were not used at that time.
.

I can’t speak for IDI, only for me. I think the DNA can be date stamped to some degree by OTHER factors. For example, if it was commingled with the blood than it was probably deposited with the blood (commingled and layered are not the same); the panties were new (the tDNA on the leggings destroys the manufacturing process theory); their “history.” Even the location found can be a factor. Etc.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This is the point: as Henry Lee said, DNA was irrelevant in half the cases it was found, BEFORE tDNA had even been thought of. Who is to say what LCN will be in the future?

LCN is irrelevant here.
...

AK