DNA Facts???
- Thread starter Barbara
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Jayelles
New Member
Yes there is. All we know is that it was collected later and didn't come from her body or her clothes. If you go to www.acandyrose.com and check out Chief beckern's deposition in the Wolf case, you'll see that Lin Wood was clearly surprised to learn there was more DNA, but that Chief Beckner absolutely refused to discuss it because it might compromise the investigation.Jolynna said:
scandi
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 18,226
- Reaction score
- 51
Jolynna said:
Lovely just posted today on this thread that a Mr Polenik in Chicago has found microscopic evidence that could provide another DNA sample that was never known about before. I thought it was found on her clothing or body - maybe not.
It might prove to be a DNA case afterall if it matches Karr!
Scandi
LovelyPigeon
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 13,806
- Reaction score
- 20
I had forgotten all about Beckner's DNA-X! Beckner said that foreign DNA was found 'at the scene' but not on JonBenét's clothing or body, but he would not say exactly where it was found. From his 2001 deposition:
Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
20 that was not on JonBen t or on her clothing; is that
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Where was that?
24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
25 we can't go. --->>
Q -- to the fact that you took the DNA from
12 Chris Wolf, you obtained it in February or March of
13 1998.
14 A And we did not have DNAX at that time.
15 Q So DNAX came along subsequent in time?
16 A Yes.
http://www.acandyrose.com/11262001becknerdeposition.txt
Several possibilities: the cord on the garrotte or hands, the paintbrush used as a stick for the garrotte, the blanket put over JonBenét's body in the basement, the suitcase found under the basement window, surfaces in the basement bathroom, coverings on her bed in her room...etc
Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
20 that was not on JonBen t or on her clothing; is that
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Where was that?
24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
25 we can't go. --->>
Q -- to the fact that you took the DNA from
12 Chris Wolf, you obtained it in February or March of
13 1998.
14 A And we did not have DNAX at that time.
15 Q So DNAX came along subsequent in time?
16 A Yes.
http://www.acandyrose.com/11262001becknerdeposition.txt
Several possibilities: the cord on the garrotte or hands, the paintbrush used as a stick for the garrotte, the blanket put over JonBenét's body in the basement, the suitcase found under the basement window, surfaces in the basement bathroom, coverings on her bed in her room...etc
MysteryAddict
New Member
If this DNAX wasn't discovered until two years after the
crime- how would they know it is related?
crime- how would they know it is related?
Jolynna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 1,996
Mystery,
You wouldn't think that DNA found 2 years after the murder would be important. But there are some possibilities.
If it was, say, from semen on the blanket found with JonBenet, that would be incriminating and enough to send an investigator to Thailand.
Especially if Karr had referred to some kind of activity that would have put the evidence there.
For some reason Beckner was prevented from saying ANYTHING about that DNA and the only reason I can come up with is something LIKE (not that I necessarily think this is it) semen somewhere that only the killer would know of.
All the other DNA evidence was freely shared with the media. So, it seems there would be something more incriminating and more easily tracked to the murderer about DNA-x.
You wouldn't think that DNA found 2 years after the murder would be important. But there are some possibilities.
If it was, say, from semen on the blanket found with JonBenet, that would be incriminating and enough to send an investigator to Thailand.
Especially if Karr had referred to some kind of activity that would have put the evidence there.
For some reason Beckner was prevented from saying ANYTHING about that DNA and the only reason I can come up with is something LIKE (not that I necessarily think this is it) semen somewhere that only the killer would know of.
All the other DNA evidence was freely shared with the media. So, it seems there would be something more incriminating and more easily tracked to the murderer about DNA-x.
"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."
Don't think it is, quite frankly. But you're right: if it isn't connected to the case, he could still be the guy.
"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."
Right. But, and I know I'll get the hammer for this, that ALSO works the OTHER way...
Don't think it is, quite frankly. But you're right: if it isn't connected to the case, he could still be the guy.
"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."
Right. But, and I know I'll get the hammer for this, that ALSO works the OTHER way...
Jolynna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,788
- Reaction score
- 1,996
I have not read anything about DNA-X matching anything. DNA-X isn't currently being mentioned by the press.
No match can be established between the DNA from the bloodspot and from under JonBenet's fingernails. The DNA from under the fingernails is degraded and contaminated from the use of a dirty tool during collection.
IF the sample COULD reliably be tested and there WERE a match, then (IMO) that would prove an intruder. DNA both under the nails and on JB's underwear would not have come from the factory or been accidently transfered during collection.
BUT, there has not been a match. Nor a non-match.
No match can be established between the DNA from the bloodspot and from under JonBenet's fingernails. The DNA from under the fingernails is degraded and contaminated from the use of a dirty tool during collection.
IF the sample COULD reliably be tested and there WERE a match, then (IMO) that would prove an intruder. DNA both under the nails and on JB's underwear would not have come from the factory or been accidently transfered during collection.
BUT, there has not been a match. Nor a non-match.
SD, I don't know if I've interpreted your post correctly, but I tried to 'put it the other way', and I got:SuperDave said:
"even if the DNA had included Karr, the Ramseys should not be excluded if there is strong evidence for their guilt."
Yes indeed, for then we would have a scenario where the Ramseys would have been in this together with Karr, for Patsy Ramsey quite obviously wrote the ransom note, and the fiber evidence and their many lies point to the Ramseys too.
Then there is the parents' suspicious behavior right from the start which indicates they were hiding something. This still would have had to be explained even if Karr's DNA had matched.
The Ramseys' extremely suspicious behavior and non-cooperation with LE doesn't pass the sniffing test and will remain a serious flaw in every intruder theory.
Has the alleged pubic hair which was found (on or near JB's body?) been definitely sourced? On the JB forums I have read everything so far: from the hair belonging to Melinda Ramsey, to it being Patsy's arm hair, or an unsourced 'underbelly' or armpit hair.
Does anyone have specific info on that?
Can DNA analysis of hair reveal the gender of the donor of the hair?
Does anyone have specific info on that?
Can DNA analysis of hair reveal the gender of the donor of the hair?
"SD, I don't know if I've interpreted your post correctly, but I tried to 'put it the other way', and I got:
'even if the DNA had included Karr, the Ramseys should not be excluded if there is strong evidence for their guilt.'"
Nope. You got it wrong. What I meant was quite simple.
"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."
Just replace "Karr" with "Ramsey."
And yes, I do. Carol McKinley reported back in August of 2002 that the hair had been matched to Patsy through mitochondrial DNA testing.
'even if the DNA had included Karr, the Ramseys should not be excluded if there is strong evidence for their guilt.'"
Nope. You got it wrong. What I meant was quite simple.
"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."
Just replace "Karr" with "Ramsey."
And yes, I do. Carol McKinley reported back in August of 2002 that the hair had been matched to Patsy through mitochondrial DNA testing.
It answered a good portion of it.SuperDave said:
If I understand the DNA issues in the case correctly, are the following statements true? :
The DNA from the fingernails was contaminated by dirty nail clippers.
A very small blood spot on the panties of JonBenet contained both high quality DNA (and I assume CODIS quality?) from JonBenet and unidentified and degraded DNA (rumoured to be around 2 marker DNA?)
There is a 2 marker match between the fingernail DNA and the above mentioned spot.
Another (blood?) spot on her panties contains both JonBenets DNA and 10 marker DNA from an unidentified source.
DNA-X is from an undisclosed location not on JonBenet or an article of her clothing no indication by LE of comparison with other DNA.
BTW what is your view on the origin of the fingernail and panty DNA (other than intruder)?
"The DNA from the fingernails was contaminated by dirty nail clippers."
Very possible.
"A very small blood spot on the panties of JonBenet contained both high quality DNA (and I assume CODIS quality?) from JonBenet and unidentified and degraded DNA (rumoured to be around 2 marker DNA?)"
Not that high quality. It only had nine and a half markers, not the CODIS 13.
"There is a 2 marker 'match' between the fingernail DNA and the above mentioned spot."
No self-respecting geneticist would say that was a match, since 99% of human DNA is indentical.
"Another (blood?) spot on her panties contains both JonBenets DNA and 10 marker DNA from an unidentified source."
Far as i know.
"DNA-X is from an undisclosed location not on JonBenet or an article of her clothing no indication by LE of comparison with other DNA."
DNA-X seemed to be much ado about nothing.
"BTW what is your view on the origin of the fingernail and panty DNA (other than intruder)?"
You asking me specifically?
This could take some time. There are a number of ways it could have come into contact with her. Some of the scientists and prosecutors are on record as saying that the panty DNA is a leftover from whomever put them together in Thailand. Given its sorry condition, that strikes me as likely.
Fingernail DNA?
If you stopped to consider how much DNA you have on your own body, including under your nails, you'd probably be like that TV detective "Monk."
Very possible.
"A very small blood spot on the panties of JonBenet contained both high quality DNA (and I assume CODIS quality?) from JonBenet and unidentified and degraded DNA (rumoured to be around 2 marker DNA?)"
Not that high quality. It only had nine and a half markers, not the CODIS 13.
"There is a 2 marker 'match' between the fingernail DNA and the above mentioned spot."
No self-respecting geneticist would say that was a match, since 99% of human DNA is indentical.
"Another (blood?) spot on her panties contains both JonBenets DNA and 10 marker DNA from an unidentified source."
Far as i know.
"DNA-X is from an undisclosed location not on JonBenet or an article of her clothing no indication by LE of comparison with other DNA."
DNA-X seemed to be much ado about nothing.
"BTW what is your view on the origin of the fingernail and panty DNA (other than intruder)?"
You asking me specifically?
This could take some time. There are a number of ways it could have come into contact with her. Some of the scientists and prosecutors are on record as saying that the panty DNA is a leftover from whomever put them together in Thailand. Given its sorry condition, that strikes me as likely.
Fingernail DNA?
If you stopped to consider how much DNA you have on your own body, including under your nails, you'd probably be like that TV detective "Monk."
A poster on another forum wrote:
I don't live in the US and have no idea how reliable Crier and Moriarty are when it comes to official sources. I always thought that the fingernail DNA had too few markers to be even compared, so how can they claim it 'matched' the DNA in her underwear?
Nuisanceposter
Remembering Little Miss Christmas
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 24
Rashomon, someone on the CTV board said the fingernail DNA had six markers, all of them matching the underwear DNA.
Is six enough to make a conclusive match? It had always been my impression the fingernail DNA was too incomplete and contaminated to conclusively be matched to anything.
I don't place much stock in Erin Moriarty and less in Gray and San Agustin - they seem Ramsey-biased. Is there anyone else who says the DNAs match?
Is six enough to make a conclusive match? It had always been my impression the fingernail DNA was too incomplete and contaminated to conclusively be matched to anything.
I don't place much stock in Erin Moriarty and less in Gray and San Agustin - they seem Ramsey-biased. Is there anyone else who says the DNAs match?
Nuisanceposter
Remembering Little Miss Christmas
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 24
Thanks, Dave. Until I hear someone who is not associated with the Rs in any way say there was a conclusive match, I ain't gonna believe it.