DNA Facts???

[Nehemiah]

\
I can not for the life of me understand why you think dna found in a drop of blood in the underpants of a victim who was sexully assaulted is not evidence in this crime. The only explanation can be that you just can't bear to see the evidence for what it is.
I can respect that. Some of you people have spent countless hours of your life focusing on the belief that the Ramsey's did this. Now that they have dna with 13 markers that excludes the family found in her blood, in her underwear, you have decided that itisn't a dna case. Tell me this......if a factory workers dna can be deposited so easily in a childs underwear, then the fibers of her parents clothing who held her, lived with her, bathed her and dressed her could very easily be deposited on her clothing and body with no problem. See.......we can twist and interpret the evidence in any way that fits our own assumptions.
If the FBI took the time and money to deposit that dna into codis it was not degraded.And those of you who keep saying that the Ramsey's are still the number one suspects.....WRONG!!!! You need to listen to the current DA, and the current POLICE CHEIF....they believe the evidence points to an intruder. We don't have to listen to the old opinions because their books and movie deals and so forth are over and done and they didn't solve the case. They are bitter, and of course will never believe anyone but the Ramsey's did this......as will many of you on these forums.

Regardless of anyone's personal thoughts here on the forum, Dr. Henry Lee said this would not be a DNA case and he said that from the beginning, before all this circus started. I certainly hope he is wrong, but he is an expert.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Please. Dr. Lee obtained a package of underwear identical to the ones the undies on JonBenet came from, and these brand new underwear also had DNA on them - fresh from the package, never worn. That settles that in my mind.

 

[Wrinkles]

And the question remains...

Was the DNA found under little Jon Benet's fingernails the same as was found in her panties. If it was...we have something of great interest in solving this whole pathetic and horrific crime of a little doll baby who never deserved what she got. No one deserves what that precious little girl got.

Wrinkles

 

[UKGuy]

IMO the dna may be a relevant factor. Only if its origin is connected with JonBenet's death.

It may not be for many reasons, one obvious one is dna deposited prior to her death accidentally.

This could have arisen as far back as the manufacture of the size-12 underwear cloth, where anyone coming in contact with the roll of cloth may have contaminated it.

Then there is the underwear manufacturer, where template patterns will be used to create the underwear, then it is presumably sewn on a sewing machine, and possibly packed by hand, all offering an opportunity for a foreign deposit.

Then there is the person who dressed JonBenet in the size-12's, if this was an intruder then either degraded dna, sourced from the intruder, or carried by the intruder was transferred to the size-12 underwear?

Then there is the person who wiped Jonbenet down. The blood stain in her size-12 underwear did not match with any blood smears on her genitalia, suggesting she may have been already redressed prior to being wiped down?

Its interesting how significant her size-12 underwear have become.



.

 

[BBB167893]

"I can not for the life of me understand why you think dna found in a drop of blood in the underpants of a victim who was sexully assaulted is not evidence in this crime."

Because the forensic folks said it wasn't.

"Now that they have dna with 13 markers that excludes the family found in her blood, in her underwear, you have decided that itisn't a dna case."

No, it only has nine with a questionable tenth and that was only after years of advances in technology that they were able to get THAT!

And it was the testers who "decided" it wasn't a DNA case. I can prove it.

"Please. Dr. Lee obtained a package of underwear identical to the ones the undies on JonBenet came from, and these brand new underwear also had DNA on them - fresh from the package, never worn. That settles that in my mind."

Agreed.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Aug 24, 2006
Former DA Says DNA Will Be Key In Ramsey Case
(CBS4) BOULDER, Colo. The former district attorney of Adams County gave some perspective into the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Bob Grant was once part of a team of prosecutors who advised the Boulder DA's office during the course of a grand jury investigation into the homicide 8 years ago. --->>

According to Grant, DNA will be the critical evidence in the case and reports of there not being any good samples left is simply not true.

"There are clean samples and there is a clean DNA profile and its there just waiting for a known to be matched with it," Grant said.

Regardless of whatever DNA might have been swabbed in Thailand, Grant said the Boulder DA's office will gather its own DNA from Karr, either with his consent or with a court order. --->>

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_236222319.html

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Did Craig Silverman say on the Peter Boyles radio show that he'd heard that BPD has already 'matched' DNA from John Mark Karr's letters to DNA in the Ramsey case????

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Answering my own question--> it seems that Silverman was actually much less definite than Boyles made him out to have said:

Former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman speculated that investigators may already have DNA evidence that they believe links Karr to JonBenet's death.

He said prosecutors may have obtained and tested DNA from a letter Karr reportedly sent through the mail, and that may have persuaded Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy to send an investigator to Thailand to surreptitiously collect more samples. - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210407,00.html

 

[Afton]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/25/lkl.01.html

KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?

KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your
laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.

What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.

That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a nail. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.

another excerpt:

KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, how much do you put into handwriting analysis if that comes up?

KOBILINSKY: Well, I'll tell you, Larry, handwriting analysis is accepted across the country in every court but being that said you have to understand it's not the same thing as DNA. And I think the reliability strongly depends on the capabilities of the expert of the analyst and what his training is and what kind of information he's looking at.

For example, looking at a yearbook that may have been 20, 25 years old, looking at that writing and comparing it to the ransom note, which was about nine and a half years old, you know, people's handwriting changes. It changes over time. So, you really have to have writing contemporaneous with the document that you're looking at.

But despite that, I have looked at these two documents myself. I have found a number of, a significant number of similarities with some very unusual letters and I've looked at the geometry and it seems to me I would say it's more likely than not that Mr. Karr was the author of that note. Again, I'm not a handwriting expert but I, you know, using various methods that's the way it looks to me.

 

[BBB167893]

Sounds like Kobalinsky is a little confused.

Not only that, but there was a criminologist on "O'Reilly" last night and she said the transference is more likely than you might think.

 

[UKGuy]

KOBILINSKY: ...
That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a nail. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.

...

Afton,

So whats new is Kobilinsky saying the isolated dna is new, it was sourced from a nail, so how does he exclude any prior dna having been deposited, or is he simply talking up the case?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Kobalinsky was never involved in this case, that I knew of.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Koblinsky is a DNA expert who frequently is called upon for opinion on cases by talk show hosts. Just like posters, he doesn't have to be involved in the case in order to give his opinions.

 

[Jolynna]

Will DNA Provide Missing Link in Case Against John Mark Karr?



The thinking goes if John Mark Karr is a DNA match, Boulder's got a case against him. But if he isn't a match, this couldn't be the guy. But is it true?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210607,00.html

CASEY JORDAN, PH.D., CRIMINOLOGIST: Yes, I believe so, because of the bizarre behavior of this particular suspect, I think that the public is really going demand a DNA match, a really strong conclusive piece of forensic evidence. Not just his own statements to determine that this is the guy.

KASICH: Now, you know, Karr has said — now this is really bizarre. I'm sure for being a criminologist. He said oh, you can't pay attention to the DNA. What is that about, in your opinion?

JORDAN: Well, it's almost what we would call a double thinker or triple think. It's a contra indicator. If he anticipates that there's not going to be a match, and he says so before the results come in, then he's already got an explanation built up in his head as to why it may not match. And of course, he says the science isn't perfect. But in fact, it could just be he just wasn't there.

KASICH: Yes. Now how much DNA do you need in order to have an effective amount where you can prove things? Somebody is saying that there may not be enough DNA.

JORDAN: Right. Well.

KASICH: How much do you need? And what do you get if you don't have enough?

JORDAN: Miniscule amounts. Something like the head of a pin is just fine. But the problem is it's the quality of the sample. Small isn't so much the issue as pure DNA. And when its mixed or contaminated with other DNA through human error, through the handlers, through people at the crime scene.

KASICH: How about with another person's blood? They're saying, you know, that there's this little bit of DNA is mixed in with her blood.

JORDAN: With her blood. And it could be from saliva, from dandruff, from sweat. It could it be from the manufacturers at the plant that made those underwear that she was wearing. It could it be from the blanket that was over the body when her father brought her upstairs and laid her on the carpet. It could it have been from anything.

KASICH: Well, you know, this thing about the underwear from the factory showed traces of DNA in other samples, or blood, I guess it was, right?

JORDAN: Right.

KASICH: I mean, did you ever hear anything like that? I mean, how does somebody's DNA, a factory worker get on — contaminate this kind of evidence? Is that common?

JORDAN: It's more common than you would think because the whole concept of transference is that every day, as we touch door knobs, as we stand on the subway and touch a pole, if somebody sneezes or coughs on us, we have their DNA on us. Even when I shake your hand, I could put my DNA on you.

So we're just as the science gets more and more precise. We're beginning to realize how much transference happens. And if a factory worker sneezed on the underwear while putting them in a plastic package, you could still get that DNA.

KASICH: Well, then, aren't you really taking us to the place where we won't — that DNA is not a slam dunk? Isn't everything you're saying lead up to the fact that DNA may not prove conclusively one way or the other, either because the DNA from a factory worker, there's not enough there, it's mixed in with blood. I mean, is it possible that at the end of all this we're going to say that's not the clue here?

JORDAN: Well, you have a gray spectrum, areas of gray in which you have probabilities of matching that are more highly consistent and then beyond the pale definite, definite slam dunks.

 

[Jolynna]

My above post is the transcript from the "O' Reilly" SuperDave just mentioned.

 

[Jolynna]

Other possible problems with the DNA:

From today's Court TV Chat

with Dr. Henry Lee



http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2001/0202lee.html



It's a good question. Because what's the public perception and the reality are a little apart. The public perception will come from reading the newspaper or watching talk shows. What happened with the JonBenet Ramsey case, what happened in the first six hours, is that the police treated it like a kidnapping case. The crime scene wasn't thoroughly searched. In six hours, things can be changed, physical evidence can be lost or contaminated. That created problems later for the investigators who investigated the case because the body wasn't discovered right away and, later, Mr. Ramsey found the body himself and carried the body from the basement to the upstairs living room. So we generally try to look at the scene and say whether it's an outdoor or indoor scene, and we also want to know whether it's a primary scene or a secondary scene. Primary, meaning that the crime was committed in that particular location. If we can find out where the primary location is, then you can recover more evidence. So in this case, because of the initial six hours lost, investigators subsequently developed some difficulty in looking at the original location. Also, the body was carried by the victim's father, so there was this cross-contamination of trace evidence, which created problems later on. And there were other friends and relatives visiting the scene during those six hours.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

...But if he isn't a match, this couldn't be the guy. But is it true?

Not for the RDIs. For years they've contended that the male DNA in JonBenét's panties and under her nails is not connected to her killer.

If the DA believes Karr is the killer and has strong evidence other than the DNA, there still may be a case against him.

 

[Jolynna]

LovelyPigeon,

I think the point of the discussion following the "match" quote was that when the DNA is not reliable or of questonable origin because of the possibility of contamination during or before being collected, that just because a suspect was not a match did not mean he should be excluded.

I think the point of the discussion was that just because you find DNA, because the new tests are sooooo sensitive, it does not mean that the DNA is necessarily related to the crime.

There could be another explanation for the DNA being there.

 

[Jayelles]

Not for the RDIs. For years they've contended that the male DNA in JonBenét's panties and under her nails is not connected to her killer.

If the DA believes Karr is the killer and has strong evidence other than the DNA, there still may be a case against him.

That is true. However there is DNA-x which we know nothing about.

 

[Jolynna]

"If the DA believes Karr is the killer and has strong evidence other than the DNA, there still may be a case against him."

Absolutely.

According to Barry Scheck, even if the DNA were to exclude Karr, because of the unreliability of this DNA, Karr should not be excluded if there is strong evidence of his guilt.