DNA Facts???

[K777angel]

Dna from under the fingernails had less than a full set of markers; dna from the original test on the blood spot in the panties had less than a full set of markers.
The two sets had markers that were in common and no markers that excluded the two as being from the same contributor.

I understand that it only takes one "different" marker to eliminate another DNA sample as a match.
If neither of these samples had complete sets of markers in order to compare them not only to each other - but to ANYONE - how can you claim that someone was either excluded or included as the donor??

That is what I believe Dr. Lee and others have been saying all along is the inherent problem here. No?

 

[Britt]

Why_nutt, thank you for that detailed explanation. Okay, maybe we're finally getting somewhere here:

Dna from under the fingernails had less than a full set of markers; dna from the original test on the blood spot in the panties had less than a full set of markers.
The two sets had markers that were in common and no markers that excluded the two as being from the same contributor.

My recollection from ST's book is that the DNA did not match any of the Ramseys IF it was not a mixed sample. Because it was not a primo sample, whether it was from a single donor or mixed could not be determined at the time ST left the case.

If anyone has a better explanation, please post it. I'm not very good with DNA.

This is what the CBI summary report on the DNA results said. The sample taken from the panties contained a major component belonging to JonBenet, and a minor component. As the report states, IF the minor component was contributed by an individual, then the Ramseys are excluded. A person is not going out on a limb to fill in the unstated but factual words that if the minor component is not from an individual, but is from more than one person, the Ramseys are not excluded.

So, I'll repeat my questions yet again:

How is this DNA connected to the crime?

How did the perp deposit a DNA sample without all the markers, a/k/a a partial sample, a/k/a a sample that is "not of high-enough quality" (per Lin Wood)?

If the unidentified DNA degraded during the few hours from JB's death until she was found, why did HER DNA not likewise degrade?

 

[Toth]

You spill some spaghetti sauce on the tablecloth, bacteria start eating away at it, someone comes along and analyzes it.. it may not be 'intact' but its still useful information. If they had come along more promptly, it would be Full rather than Partial.

 

[why_nutt]

You spill some spaghetti sauce on the tablecloth, bacteria start eating away at it, someone comes along and analyzes it.. it may not be 'intact' but its still useful information. If they had come along more promptly, it would be Full rather than Partial.

Terrible example. Try this:

You spill some spaghetti sauce on the tablecloth. Two days later, you spill wine on the same spot. Upon analysis, someone finds that bacteria have had enough time to eat away at the spaghetti sauce, but not the wine. Conclusion: the substances were deposited at significantly different times.

 

[Cherokee]

Terrible example. Try this:

You spill some spaghetti sauce on the tablecloth. Two days later, you spill wine on the same spot. Upon analysis, someone finds that bacteria have had enough time to eat away at the spaghetti sauce, but not the wine. Conclusion: the substances were deposited at significantly different times.

:clap: Excellent example.



IMO

 

[sissi]

Terrible example. Try this:

You spill some spaghetti sauce on the tablecloth. Two days later, you spill wine on the same spot. Upon analysis, someone finds that bacteria have had enough time to eat away at the spaghetti sauce, but not the wine. Conclusion: the substances were deposited at significantly different times.

You spill the spaghetti,later the wine,the spaghetti ,not being "stirred" ,does not fully "comingle with the wine",you did not make a "solution" ,rather you have a layering of different materials. However,if you were chewing the spaghetti ,took a swig of the wine,and spit a tiny bit while saying,"pass the ppppparmesan,you would have a comingled spot containing the elements of both and would need to separate them for analysis.
The blood was comingled with the dna of a male. The INTRUDER killed Jonbenet!
IMO JMO

 

[Maxi]

The DNA may have been degraded because it was not deposited on the night of her death. It could even have been already degraded when it was deposited, esp. if it was transferred from under JBR's nails to the crotch of her panties.

DNA is everywhere, and it's easy to pick up a miniscule amount under your nails. We know from Pam Griffin that JBR had chronic genital irritation and was known to scratch herself because of it.

 

[MIBRO]

The DNA may have been degraded because it was not deposited on the night of her death. It could even have been already degraded when it was deposited, esp. if it was transferred from under JBR's nails to the crotch of her panties.

DNA is everywhere, and it's easy to pick up a miniscule amount under your nails. We know from Pam Griffin that JBR had chronic genital irritation and was known to scratch herself because of it.

We know from Dr. Beuf's medical records that JonBenét had chronic sinus and upper respiratory difficulties (bad breath, coughs, stuffy nose) and the occasional small accident (nail bent back, hit by a golf club, falls, etc). At age 3 she had redness on the buttocks and in the vaginal area due to diarrhea. I'm really not aware of what Pam Griffin has said, nor how she would be more aware of JonBenét's medical history than the records themselves. (see PMPT p334-336).

How does degraded DNA under the nails IMPROVE (become less degraded) by being transferred through scratching in the pantie area?

 

[MIBRO]

Why-Nutt
I think your WA's and WB's and fill-in-the-blank interpretations are misleading.

First off, CBI knows
1. The full profile of JonBenet's DNA
2. The full profile of John Ramsey's DNA
3. The full profile of Patsy Ramsey's DNA

THEN, they also know that certain DNA characteristics of JonBenét's DNA will be the same as Patsy's and John's. There will be certain loci that will appear similar due to their common genetic makeup. Those similarities are to be expected, so what the CBI would be looking for are the dissimilarities.

What the CBI has found, that EXCLUDES the Ramseys, is (1) it is MALE DNA and (2) there are DNA characteristics in the crime scene DNA that were NOT FOUND in the FULL profile of the male Ramsey samples compared to it (or, alternatively, there were characteristics in John's DNA - for example - that were NOT FOUND in the crime scene DNA).

 

[Shylock]

You spill the spaghetti,later the wine,the spaghetti ,not being "stirred" ,does not fully "comingle with the wine"

Sissi, if you knew how DNA is tested you would know it's not possible to detect if it is "mixed", "layered", "side-by-side"...whatever.
The "comingled" wording is nothing but BS that Limp Wood uses to confuse people who know nothing about DNA.
To use your silly example: Cut out a piece of your tablecloth, put it in a test tube with water and shake it. Now try telling if the spaghetti sauce and wine is mixed or not mixed.


JMO/IMO/HMO

 

[Shylock]

How does degraded DNA under the nails IMPROVE (become less degraded) by being transferred through scratching in the pantie area?

Mibro, you're making two assumptions that can't be made.
First, you're assuming the DNA from under the fingernail is the same as the DNA in the panties.
Second, (even if they were the same) you're assuming the DNA was transfered from the fingernail into the panties when it could have easily been the other direction. If the DNA was in the panties from the garment factory, a microscopic amount of it transfered under her nail, probably when she went to the bathroom sometime that day. (Unless you know of a way a person can releave themself and not touch their underwear?)

 

[sissi]

Shylock,I was adding my two cents to the "spaghetti/wine" scenario,and I believe I am correct.
Your,taking a sample and mixing it together,may very well be an "old method" used by the original investigators,let's hope not.
Concerning the issue of Burke's dna having not been tested,in order to believe this you first must believe the scientific issues are being handled by total morons. A sample would not be sent to the FBI for a match,without first eliminating the family.
If they did not sample the child,which would be a ludicrous assumption,the testing of Patsy would serve scientifically to eliminate Burke as well.
JMO

 

[MIBRO]

Mibro, you're making two assumptions that can't be made.
First, you're assuming the DNA from under the fingernail is the same as the DNA in the panties.
Second, (even if they were the same) you're assuming the DNA was transfered from the fingernail into the panties when it could have easily been the other direction. If the DNA was in the panties from the garment factory, a microscopic amount of it transfered under her nail, probably when she went to the bathroom sometime that day. (Unless you know of a way a person can releave themself and not touch their underwear?)

Actually, Shylock, I wasn't assuming anything, I was pointing out the problem with the idea (in Maxi's post) that there was foreign degraded DNA under the fingernails that got transferred to the panties by way of JonBenét scratching herself in the pantie area. If that were the case, the DNA would not be LESS degraded in the pantie area.

But, since you have made ANOTHER transfer suggestion, I do have a question for you. WHY do you work so hard to find/explain away the DNA in this case? WHY do you seem to prefer to find ways in which to disregard the probable connection between the foreign DNA and the murderer? Thankfully, in almost ALL cases, crime investigators are not inclined to do the same, but hold DNA up as probable evidence that will connect the perpetrator to the victim. DNA found on a victim is a great find (except for some reason in the Ramsey case according to many posting here). Most odd, don't you think?

 

[Toth]

WHY do you work so hard to find/explain away the DNA in this case? WHY do you seem to prefer to find ways in which to disregard the probable connection between the foreign DNA and the murderer?

Because they don't want to solve the case, they want to convict the parents and so this very reliable and strong evidence must be suppressed somehow.

 

[Jayelles]

MIBRO said:-

WHY do you seem to prefer to find ways in which to disregard the probable connection between the foreign DNA and the murderer?

I think that there are people who will assUme that the degraded DNA came from the murderer in the same way as some people assUme-d that the rogue fingerprints in the vanDam house came from Danielle's killer.

However, there are others who wisely heed the words of the world class experts who have stated that the DNA may NOT from her killer and that it would be prudent to bear that in mind when clearing suspects.

It's very valid to ask why the foreign DNA was degraded if it had been deposited within the previous 24 hours and why JonBenet's was not.

Now I have a question about DNA fragmentation. If DNA strands are fragmented, is it possible to link them to each other? I don't mean in the correct sequence because I know from the Trade Centre forensic website that it's not, but is it possible to determine whether two fragments originated from the same sequence/person?

 

[MIBRO]

Forensic samples routinely contain DNA from multiple contributors. Detection and intepretation of mixtures is a routine aspect of forensic DNA analysis. Interpreting these mixtures can be challenging, but the significance of an inclusion/match can be statistically assessed. Multiple donors to a DNA sample does not cause the scientist to throw it away as useless. If a sample is compared and an inclusion/match is found, a sound method for calculating likelihood may be applied.

In the courtroom, the "sounder" the calculations, the "sounder" the relevance for inclusion will be. There are interpretational challenges and scientists tend to take the conservative route, and I would suggest they are encouraged to do so for the sake of courtroom testimony.

 

[Jayelles]

Forensic samples routinely contain DNA from multiple contributors.

Are we talking about fragmented DNA here? If a sample comprises only of DNA fragments - can it be determined beyond all reasonable doubt that all of these fragments came from the same individual or that they came from only two individuals?

 

[MIBRO]

The composition of Post #96 was started more than 45 minutes before the "post reply" button was hit (real life interferes), so post #94 and #95 were not in my viewing until after it got posted. Therefore, to answer your question, post #96 has nothing to do with post #95.

 

[Maxi]

Pam G reported conversations with Patsy about JBR's recurrent irritations and the problem of her waiting too long to urinate and pulling at her underwear. It's in Steven Singular's book.

I don't think we know for sure that all of the panty dna is less degraded than that found under JBR's nails. Obviously, JBR's own DNA from the bleeding would be fresh. If there were other, older, DNA mixed in, the picture would be quite confused.

It's possible that DNA technology has advanced since ST and Schiller wrote their books. Maybe now the different DNA sources can be distinguished. But, as far as I know, we don't even have enough solid info to know whether the DNA under JBR's nails "matches" that in her panties, or if it just shares markers.

The DNA may have been degraded because it was not deposited on the night of her death. It could even have been already degraded when it was deposited, esp. if it was transferred from under JBR's nails to the crotch of her panties.

DNA is everywhere, and it's easy to pick up a miniscule amount under your nails. We know from Pam Griffin that JBR had chronic genital irritation and was known to scratch herself because of it.

 

[Jayelles]

I understand that DNA is recorded as a string of letters (I read that at a university website). Supposing we use names as an analogy.

JANE
JAMES
JEAN
MARYJANE
MOLLY
MARY
FRED

As long as the letters are together (i.e. not fragmented), we can identify the names with their owners.

If we have a broken string - JA E

MOLLY and MARY can be eliminated but JANE, JAMES and MARYJANE cannot. Can we even tell if the E belongs to the same string or if it is a fragment of FRED or JEAN?

If the fragements are very small and we have E N J A .... is there any way of telling if that is JANE or JEAN or MARYJANE or even if each letter comes rom a different donor?