DNA Facts???

[BlueCrab]

Henry Lee MAY have changed his mind since making that statement in 1998.

In the Rocky Mountain News of April 26, 2003: Lee also acknowledged "there may be significant new evidence in the case since his last involvement."

The only significant new evidence I can think of involves DNA.

IMO if there's DNA in a case then it's a DNA case. Therefore, I think the JonBenet case is a DNA case.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Ivy]

I too believe this is a DNA case. I also believe the Earth is flat.

 

[Britt]

IMO if there's DNA in a case then it's a DNA case.

IMO that is not the definition of "DNA case."

DNA case = If the DNA will identify a perp and solve a crime.

 

[BlueCrab]

IMO that is not the definition of "DNA case."

DNA case = If the DNA will identify a perp and solve a crime.

DNA can be used for countless things in both civil and criminal cases. The DNA in the JonBenet case has been used extensively to tentatively exclude numerous suspects, including John and Patsy Ramsey.

With the apparent recent improvements in the PCR amplification process and analyses the suspected killer of JonBenet may someday be identified, even using degraded DNA.

Just my opinion.

 

[tipper]

IMO that is not the definition of "DNA case."

DNA case = If the DNA will identify a perp and solve a crime.

You mean it's only a DNA case if it matches a known criminal?

Would this be a DNA case by your definition? If it would, how does it differ from the Ramsey case?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/26/lkl.00.html

MILLER: Well, my daughter's name was Veronica Perotti (ph). We call her "Roni." And she was the oldest of my four children. She had gone away to college, to Chico State University, and she was part of the nursing program, and she had completed her freshman year, and she was now going to move into an apartment with her four girlfriends, and they were going to live off campus. Since she decided to take summer classes and keep her job for the summer -- she wanted to get out of school in four years like her friends were going to do, and she was -- the nursing program was five. So she was the only one in the apartment, and she had been in the apartment for three weeks, and she was brutally murdered, she was beaten to death in that apartment.

We had people that have given information to the police, and as the time went on, and the police kept asking more questions, they all got attorneys, and they were no longer able to talk to the police. We put up a billboard asking for help to find her murderer. And as time has gone on, new technology has become available to us, and most recently, we were able to have DNA tested from her -- from the crime scene, and we found that they not only found her DNA, they have found someone else's DNA also, and we have now determined that that DNA is a male, and we're really hoping that this is going to bring enough information, or an additional help to the police that we will eventually, in a very short period of time find her murderer.

 

[Britt]

You mean it's only a DNA case if it matches a known criminal?

No, that's not what I mean. Not at all. I mean that to be a DNA case, the DNA must be proved to be connected to the crime and be able to solve the case by identifying a perp who can be proved to be connected to the crime. DNA doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[sissi]

Dr. Lee had not been consulted by the new D.A. and he acknowledged that there "may be significant new evidence in the cases since his last involvement."

"I respect her," Dr. Lee said of Keenan. "She is a very competent attorney.

These were his 2003 comments. He is not involved,yet,does not negate the fact there may be SIGNIFICANT new evidence.
JMO IMO

 

[K777angel]

If there was case-breaking new NEWS on the DNA results we would have heard all about it by now. L. Wood would certainly see to that.

We haven't and never will.

 

[Shylock]

No, that's not what I mean. Not at all. I mean that to be a DNA case, the DNA must be proved to be connected to the crime and be able to solve the case by identifying a perp who can be proved to be connected to the crime. DNA doesn't exist in a vacuum.

You hit the nail right on the head, Britt!
For some reason the Ramsey supporters can't seem to grasp the concept that unless the DNA is proven to be part of the crime itself, it's worthless.

The DNA belongs to Sum Yung Gai. Unless Lin Wood can prove Mr. Gai paddled his sampan from Asia to Boulder in 1996, this is not a DNA case.

 

[Toth]

I've no idea what 'not a dna case' means exactly but some want to think it means 'ignore what little dna evidence there is'.

If a non-Ramsey male had been actually caught in the house, there is nothing these posters could do to say 'ignore him', but let only his dna-evidence be found in the house and suddenly "its not a dna case".

Lee-san can jabber on about spitting on the sidewalk all he wants: dna from under a rape victim's fingernails and dna from a six year old girl's panties makes a very strong case.

 

[sissi]

Originally Posted by Britt
BRITT..No, that's not what I mean. Not at all. I mean that to be a DNA case, the DNA must be proved to be connected to the crime and be able to solve the case by identifying a perp who can be proved to be connected to the crime. DNA doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Yes,the dna is collected in all cases of murder,and not until a match is found does the case become a "dna" case. Having a sample is the first huge step in solving the crime,the next is finding the match. If the BPD did it's job early on,swabbed the right suspects,and saved the samples for comparison ,we may indeed,have a dna case. For the moment there is no match,as our perpetrator is not ,it appears,in the FBI data base,and we have absolutely no idea if those ,such as santa and Thomas Aquinas were ever tested and compared.
We have dna from the crime,it was in a child's underwear,in a mixed stain of blood,we have every right to hope for a match one day. Why would anyone discount this?
Who had a vested interest in wanting the parents guilty,the BPD,Kane..and others who perpetuated the myth of "asian factory workers dna comingled in blood stain in dead child's underwear",to cover for allowing an investigation that ONLY targeted the parents. That sounds very sociopathic IMO, to make a mistake and cover instead of accepting the blame?..IMO JMO

 

[Toth]

Who had a vested interest in wanting the parents guilty,the BPD,Kane..and others who perpetuated the myth of "asian factory workers dna comingled in blood stain in dead child's underwear",to cover for allowing an investigation that ONLY targeted the parents. That sounds very sociopathic IMO, to make a mistake and cover instead of accepting the blame?

Well, thats the way it is! It was a campaign against the parents, not an investigation at all. And at every step of the way thats what the BPD and Kane knew it was and wanted it to be and wanted it to continue to be and still want it to continue to be.

 

[Sabrina]

Lee-san can jabber on about spitting on the sidewalk all he wants: dna from under a rape victim's fingernails and dna from a six year old girl's panties makes a very strong case.

Yes, Toth, when there is enough to get a profile. EVEN 10 loci is NOT the standard.

Even IF a person is found matching the 10 loci, a good defense attorney will rip it to shreds because it is NOT considered a standard match.

There is NO reason for this DNA to be so degraded IF it was left by the perp. Can you explain why there are not 13 loci? Do you know WHY the DNA would be so degraded and/or so miniscule that 13 loci can't be pulled out?

JonBenet's body was not out in the elements, in a desert under 120 degrees for a week, nor was her body heat sealed in plastic and shipped in a hot shipping container across the Pacific Ocean for 3 months. It sat in a basement for a few hours, even if the temperature was warm-- 80 degrees for a few hours doesn't do it.

 

[little1]

The only expert on the case who HAS seen the testing results and knows what he is talking about and has commented publicy (that I am aware of) - is Dr. Henry Lee.
He has stated publicly that the Ramsey case "is NOT a DNA case."
.

Did he not make that statement BEFORE DNA showed up in the evidence room?

Was the Green River Case a DNA case 20 yrs ago? No.

 

[little1]

No, that's not what I mean. Not at all. I mean that to be a DNA case, the DNA must be proved to be connected to the crime and be able to solve the case by identifying a perp who can be proved to be connected to the crime. DNA doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Point well taken, but, how could you know who it belonged to without testing it?

It cannot be proven to be connected to the crime if the investigators just deny it's existence, can it?

 

[sissi]

Did he not make that statement BEFORE DNA showed up in the evidence room?

Was the Green River Case a DNA case 20 yrs ago? No.

Yes,and if he had any "*****",he would publicly clear this up,however,like many involved in this case,it serves him no purpose in career moves to admit he was wrong! Something very "american" about his silence,spooky........climb that ladder at the expense of others. I understand he is ,along with Schiller involved in a Crt TV series,I don't know the details,it may have been going on awhile,but hey,America's been very very good to him. IMO

 

[K777angel]

little1 - No - Dr. Lee did not make a statement about this not being a DNA case "before" any fleck of DNA "made it into the evidence room" as you put it.
He's a professional - world reknowned for heaven's sake.

Dr. Lee made this statement about the JonBenet Ramsey case "not being a DNA case" because in all his analysis he obviously determined that whatever little partial flecks of "DNA" were found - they were not connected to the crime. For the amount of time the perp spent manhandling JonBenet's body, there should be a plethora of his/her DNA or other forensic evidence at the scene. There was not. There WAS however - her parents forensic evidence at the scene. That cannot be properly explained.

This was not a sophisticated perp who carefully thought out this crime.
The facts of the crime make that very obvious.
The fact that there was NOT a plethora of foreign DNA at the crime scene, might indicate a sophisticated and well thought out crime covering every little detail from start to finish - entering the house in a clean room bunny suit I guess so as not to leave a trace of him/herself.
But this is not the case putting the whole crime into context. Which you MUST do in order to solve it.
The perp in other very important aspects of the crime was ill-prepared (not even bringing the ransom note/letter to the intended "kidnapping" first and foremost. Even felt totally comfortable writing it THERE in the house with Patsy's pen and paper.
The spent a great deal of time managing this crime. Where for instance, did he go to get the 2 or 3 blankets used found with JonBenet?
The search warrant lists 2 blankets on the floor of the 'wine cellar' room.
Which the perp laid JonBenet on. Now this is NOT the behavior of some wacko, pedophile crazed monster killer. They could care less.
This coupled with her also being "wrapped up" in the white blanket and her Barbie nightie laid close to her. Again - not the actions of a stranger/killer but those of someone who "cared about her" (as Barbara Walters stated to John and Patsy in her 20/20 interview and Patsy nodding along affirming what Barbara was saying..... instead of shouting, "NO! Whoever did this did NOT care about her!" She simply agreed with Barbara. A very telling moment in that interview)

You cannot zero in on one very, very speculative aspect of a crime and ignore all the other elements and facts of the crime and make a conclusion based on that one thing (supposed speck foreign DNA). It cannot be connected to this crime even if it IS there. It very likely came from a transfer source such as the factory or even JonBenet herself after touching something. That meshes with the minute amount of the DNA. The perp, if it was a stranger, would have left much, much more of it. Not mircroscopic
specks that aren't even large enough to test much.

An intruder did not kill JonBenet.

 

[Toth]

Uh,,,, how do you get a fleck of dna?

You can get a fleck of blood or of saliva or something. If from that fleck of blood you obtain dna, then one might ask: how did the contributor of that dna get to be in the basement of the Ramsey home that night? You think it was some Caucasian who works at a factory in Vietnam?

 

[Maxi]

Perhaps Dr. Lee meant that this was not a DNA case because the DNA is no smoking gun. There may be several reasonable explanations for its presence, or it may just be too contaminated, partial, or degraded to decipher.

The fact that the FBI accepted the DNA or that samples were taken from people doesn't necessariy mean the DNA is an important clue. It may mean that the BPD or DA is anticipating defense moves, covering all their bases, or hoping for advancements in DNA technology.

IMO, Dr. Lee is on the side of good science, whether it goes to a defense or to a prosecution. Sometimes that commitment may be used by guilty people or by prosecutors in overdrive. But, as a scientist, he can't worry about that. He can only tell the scientific truth as he sees it.

 

[Ivy]

Toth, your questions are NA. You must not have read K777angel's post in its entirety--or past posts that have corrected your false assumption that the DNA has been shown to be caucasian.