A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

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


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


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?

.

No, I’ not saying that “the dna sample on JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown might be that of semen.” I was just saying that DNA is DNA is DNA. We don’t have to call it “BR’s touch-dna.” But, then again... why not? I was just nit-picking.

What distinguishes the DNA samples found in JonBenet's underwear from that found in her waistband?

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “waistband,” so I don’t know how to answer the question. Are you referring to the waistband of the panties or are you talking about the leggings (the tDNA was on the side hip areas)?

We can link ALL the Ramseys to the Barbie nightgown even without DNA. It’s Ramsey clothing in the Ramsey house. As to why there is no DNA on that article of clothing that matches the CODIS sample – there is no reason why there should be.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

LCN is irrelevant here.
...

AK

That was not my meaning. What's considered LCN NOW might not be in the future.

When you get right down to it, DNA's just another tool in the box. Technology doesn't catch criminals; police and prosecutors do.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

This is the point: JB's DNA was not damaged at all.

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.

I think you just argued FOR contamination.

I can’t speak for IDI, only for me. I think the DNA can be date stamped to some degree by OTHER factors.

For me, it's other factors that render it irrelevant.

 

[UKGuy]

No, I’ not saying that “the dna sample on JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown might be that of semen.” I was just saying that DNA is DNA is DNA. We don’t have to call it “BR’s touch-dna.” But, then again... why not? I was just nit-picking.

What distinguishes the DNA samples found in JonBenet's underwear from that found in her waistband?

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “waistband,” so I don’t know how to answer the question. Are you referring to the waistband of the panties or are you talking about the leggings (the tDNA was on the side hip areas)?

We can link ALL the Ramseys to the Barbie nightgown even without DNA. It’s Ramsey clothing in the Ramsey house. As to why there is no DNA on that article of clothing that matches the CODIS sample – there is no reason why there should be.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Well I guess the underwear waistband? I would expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.

Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration, so did the intruder wear medical gloves whilst assaulting JonBenet. Was there no foreign dna found inside JonBenet?

That BR's touch-dna was found on a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown is highly relevant and links him directly to the wine-cellar since someone deposited the nightgown therein!

May I remind you that the wine-cellar is the alleged primary crime-scene.

.

 

[CorallaroC]

Anti-K,
Well I guess the underwear waistband? I would expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.

Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration, so did the intruder wear medical gloves whilst assaulting JonBenet. Was there no foreign dna found inside JonBenet?

That BR's touch-dna was found on a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown is highly relevant and links him directly to the wine-cellar since someone deposited the nightgown therein!

May I remind you that the wine-cellar is the alleged primary crime-scene.

.

and let's remember that the barbie nightgown (which was not supposed to be there per JR's statement) was attached to the white blanket. IOW the nightgown appeared to have been clinging to the blanket as it would have done in the clothes dryer. Would DNA survive a machine wash, or a hot clothes dryer? just wondering...

 

[Anti-K]

That was not my meaning. What's considered LCN NOW might not be in the future.

When you get right down to it, DNA's just another tool in the box. Technology doesn't catch criminals; police and prosecutors do.

Regardless of your meaning LCN it is not relevant to this case.

BTW, while tDNA generally refers to a collection method LCN refers to how a sample is processed. tDNA can be LCN, but if the sample is of sufficient size than LCN will not be used and the sample will be processed in the usual way (this is what BODE claimed was done in this case – processed in the usual way).
.

It’s an invaluable tool.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This is the point: JB's DNA was not damaged at all.



I think you just argued FOR contamination.


For me, it's other factors that render it irrelevant.

I really wish you would stop editing my posts when you quote them. Maybe you could, at minimum, please, indicate in some way that you made cuts?.
.

The number of markers identified (at most, 5 plus DQ Alpha iirc) in the blood sample tells us nothing about whether or not the blood was fresh. One could tell that the blood was “fresh” just by looking at it. The findings could have been exactly the same even if the blood had been old.

So, there really is no point to be made by saying that “JB's DNA was not damaged at all.”
.

I’m sorry that you think I just made an argument for contamination, and, I am equally baffled at how you came to this determination. Curious....
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Well I guess the underwear waistband? I would expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.

Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration, so did the intruder wear medical gloves whilst assaulting JonBenet. Was there no foreign dna found inside JonBenet?

That BR's touch-dna was found on a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown is highly relevant and links him directly to the wine-cellar since someone deposited the nightgown therein!

May I remind you that the wine-cellar is the alleged primary crime-scene.

.

I don’t know why you “expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.”

Don’t recall that “Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration.” I think this might be a misinterpretation on someone’s part.

BR’s DNA on the Barbie night gown connects him to the nightgown, but not necessarily to the basement or crime scene.
.

People who wish to argue that the foreign tDNA was innocently transferred by someone other than DNA-man (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc) open themselves to the argument that BR’s DNA was innocently transferred by someone other than BR (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

and let's remember that the barbie nightgown (which was not supposed to be there per JR's statement) was attached to the white blanket. IOW the nightgown appeared to have been clinging to the blanket as it would have done in the clothes dryer. Would DNA survive a machine wash, or a hot clothes dryer? just wondering...

Yes, sometimes DNA can survive the laundry. Sometimes.

However, we don’t know if the Barbie nightgown/blanket came out of the dryer and if it came out of the dryer, we don’t know when it came out. It could have been out for a couple days. Or, only the blanket was in the dryer, but both items ended up on the bed and then were scooped up together when the victim was moved, or... we just don’t know.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

I don’t know why you “expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.”

Don’t recall that “Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration.” I think this might be a misinterpretation on someone’s part.

BR’s DNA on the Barbie night gown connects him to the nightgown, but not necessarily to the basement or crime scene.
.

People who wish to argue that the foreign tDNA was innocently transferred by someone other than DNA-man (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc) open themselves to the argument that BR’s DNA was innocently transferred by someone other than BR (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc).
...

AK

For once I agree with you. BRs TDNA on the nightgown proves nothing, just like the unidentified TDNA proves nothing.

And while we're on the subject, I wonder if any thought was given to testing the workers at the factory where the Panties were made and packaged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

Regardless of your meaning LCN it is not relevant to this case.

BTW, while tDNA generally refers to a collection method LCN refers to how a sample is processed. tDNA can be LCN, but if the sample is of sufficient size than LCN will not be used and the sample will be processed in the usual way (this is what BODE claimed was done in this case – processed in the usual way).

This is my point, and the one the FBI agent made to Bill O'Reilly: we're getting DNA from sources we can't even see. Given that DNA was irrelevant in half the cases where it was found before then, the possibilities from mistakes are staggering.

 

[BBB167893]

I really wish you would stop editing my posts when you quote them. Maybe you could, at minimum, please, indicate in some way that you made cuts?

This from someone who insulted me.

The number of markers identified (at most, 5 plus DQ Alpha iirc) in the blood sample tells us nothing about whether or not the blood was fresh. One could tell that the blood was “fresh” just by looking at it. The findings could have been exactly the same even if the blood had been old.

So, there really is no point to be made by saying that “JB's DNA was not damaged at all.”

We'll drop it for now.

I’m sorry that you think I just made an argument for contamination, and, I am equally baffled at how you came to this determination. Curious....

AK

Pardon. I should have said that you allowed for the possibility, based on how it was worded.

 

[BBB167893]

I don’t know why you “expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.”

Don’t recall that “Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration.” I think this might be a misinterpretation on someone’s part.

BR’s DNA on the Barbie night gown connects him to the nightgown, but not necessarily to the basement or crime scene.
.

People who wish to argue that the foreign tDNA was innocently transferred by someone other than DNA-man (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc) open themselves to the argument that BR’s DNA was innocently transferred by someone other than BR (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc).
...

AK

BBM That's one thing we can agree on.

Recently, I read on another forum (which one doesn't matter) where an IDI was saying that if the DNA is irrelevant, then a lot of "cleared" people go into play again. I've been saying that for YEARS! IDI has bricked itself into a corner with this DNA, and now they can't disregard it. ML tried with JMK, and it only proved my point.

 

[BBB167893]

For once I agree with you. BRs TDNA on the nightgown proves nothing, just like the unidentified TDNA proves nothing.

And while we're on the subject, I wonder if any thought was given to testing the workers at the factory where the Panties were made and packaged?

I know Michael Tracey claimed that Mitch Morrissey wanted to do that. Bob Grant made that claim, as well.

 

[Anti-K]

For once I agree with you. BRs TDNA on the nightgown proves nothing, just like the unidentified TDNA proves nothing.

And while we're on the subject, I wonder if any thought was given to testing the workers at the factory where the Panties were made and packaged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The tDNA found on the leggings validates the CODIS sample found commingled with the victim’s panties on the inside crotch of her panties.
.

The CODIS sample (commingled in the victim’s blood!!) was at least ten times larger than the trace amounts investigators found on new panties tested. IOWs, the CODIS sample is ten times larger than that transferred during manufacture.

The matching DNA on the leggings seals the coffin on this one. The locations are too greatly separated for the panty DNA to have transferred from the panties to the leggings (for the manufacturing theory to be true, the DNA must move from the panties to the leggings). The panty DNA is commingled in blood, it is probably saliva (wet) while the leggings DNA is probably skin cells (dry). The panty DNA is on the inside, the leggings DNA is on the inside. One is in the middle, two are on opposite sides. ETC. Tha manufacturing/transfer theory is dead.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This is my point, and the one the FBI agent made to Bill O'Reilly: we're getting DNA from sources we can't even see. Given that DNA was irrelevant in half the cases where it was found before then, the possibilities from mistakes are staggering.

Sure, but the sample sizes referred to are smaller (LCN) than what we are talking about in this case.

Really, there are two issues here. One is the reliability of the profile(s) obtained and the other is the issue of relevance.

In this case (NOT LCN), the tDNA and the CODIS sample all vouch for each other, particularly since they were processed in separate labs, and by separate parties. IOWS, the issue of reliability is negligible, and, I can’t think of anyone associated with the case who seriously questions these findings. Not even Kolar.
What is questioned is the issue of relevance.

This brings us to your second “quote,” the irrelevance of DNA in half the cases where it was found. I see no reason why we should accept this as being true except in a very ball-park estimate and without qualification sort of way. Either way, this doesn’t in any way inform us about the DNA in this case.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

This from someone who insulted me.



We'll drop it for now.



Pardon. I should have said that you allowed for the possibility, based on how it was worded.

In every case, we have to allow for the possibility of contamination and that is why precautions and diligence are taken. Because of those precautions and diligence (and, three matching samples from two articles of clothing, processed in separate labs, etc), the chance that this (tDNA/CODIS) DNA is the result of contamination is too small to realistically consider.

So, we’re back to the issue of relevance.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM That's one thing we can agree on.

Recently, I read on another forum (which one doesn't matter) where an IDI was saying that if the DNA is irrelevant, then a lot of "cleared" people go into play again. I've been saying that for YEARS! IDI has bricked itself into a corner with this DNA, and now they can't disregard it. ML tried with JMK, and it only proved my point.

If the DNA is irrelevant “then a lot of ‘cleared’ people go into play again” IF (if, if, if...) the DNA is the only thing that “cleared” them.

It’s okay to be bricked into a corner if it’s the right corner.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

I don’t know why you “expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.”

Don’t recall that “Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration.” I think this might be a misinterpretation on someone’s part.

BR’s DNA on the Barbie night gown connects him to the nightgown, but not necessarily to the basement or crime scene.
.

People who wish to argue that the foreign tDNA was innocently transferred by someone other than DNA-man (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc) open themselves to the argument that BR’s DNA was innocently transferred by someone other than BR (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc).
...

AK

Anti-K,

I don’t know why you “expect the foreign dna in JonBenet's underwear to be distributed over her person along with some of the wine-cellar artifacts, including possibly the paintbrush, or tote etc.”

Because the foreign dna is present on her clothing so why not on her person or elsewhere at the primary crime-scene?

Don’t recall that “Coroner Meyer opines Digital Penetration.” I think this might be a misinterpretation on someone’s part.

Search Warrant 12-29-1996

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 27, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury constant with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. For further details on the autopsy see the attached document entitled Addendum To ...

So was dna left inside JonBenet, or on the paintbrush handle, did the alleged intruder wear medical gloves?

BR’s DNA on the Barbie night gown connects him to the nightgown, but not necessarily to the basement or crime scene.
.

People who wish to argue that the foreign tDNA was innocently transferred by someone other than DNA-man (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc) open themselves to the argument that BR’s DNA was innocently transferred by someone other than BR (transferred by jbr, or mom, or dad, etc).

Patently, as you acknowledge regarding the digital penetration, you have much to learn, can I suggest Kolars book.

All three Ramsey's are linked by forensic evidence to the wine-cellar which is the alleged primary crime-scene, no other person has been linked in such a manner.

The difference between the dna sample found in JonBenet's underwear and that of BR's is that we know who the latter is. So BR can theoretically be eliminated if the forensic evidence allows.

The status of the foreign dna is unknown along with its owner. So we do not know if it even belongs to the person who asphyxiated JonBenet, who as per above might be BR, with the foreign dna representing contamination at a later date, e.g. at the autopsy!

.

 

[UKGuy]

This is my point, and the one the FBI agent made to Bill O'Reilly: we're getting DNA from sources we can't even see. Given that DNA was irrelevant in half the cases where it was found before then, the possibilities from mistakes are staggering.

SuperDave,
Does the mean the foreign dna might have arrived on JonBenet after she was killed say at autopsy?

.