DNA Facts???

[little1]

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.
.

My, my--someone got up on the wrong side of the bed, huh? I didn't state that as a fact, I asked a question. Did you not notice the question mark at the end? This was something I read somewhere---I can't even remember where now. It just popped up in my head.

Also, world renowned really doesn't mean much. Lots of people are world renowned. I also take a bad stance against Dr. Lee--just with his involvement in the OJ case.

 

[Barbara]

I also take a bad stance against Dr. Lee--just with his involvement in the OJ case.

Exactly! It shows that Dr. Lee has no bias. He is a scientist! His comments are based on his knowledge of DNA science. So when a man like that, who knew his help in the OJ case would be unpopular, says the sample is not necessarily part of the crime scene, I believe him. He has no reason to lie. He is the expert.

 

[little1]

Exactly! It shows that Dr. Lee has no bias. He is a scientist! His comments are based on his knowledge of DNA science. So when a man like that, who knew his help in the OJ case would be unpopular, says the sample is not necessarily part of the crime scene, I believe him. He has no reason to lie. He is the expert.

It is one thing to know that it would be unpopular---it is another to help a murderer walk free. I am in the poistion OJ was/is guilty.

I think that his position in that case shows that he doesn't always err on the side of GOOD judgement.

 

[Barbara]

It is one thing to know that it would be unpopular---it is another to help a murderer walk free. I am in the poistion OJ was/is guilty.

I think that his position in that case shows that he doesn't always err on the side of GOOD judgement.

I too believe OJ was guilty. It is not the place of a scientist to skew his findings based on what the case is about. He too may believe OJ to be guilty but as a scientist, he is ethically obligated to report his scientific findings and opinions. As it should be. Good judgement should never come into play when reporting science. Good science must come into play and the jury must decide. The jury found OJ not guilty, not Dr. Lee. He did the right thing despite your feelings and mine.

Should he have lied to put OJ in prison? That would never be my choice, regardless of my personal feelings

 

[Britt]

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?

The investigators never denied its existence. They deny its importance in solving the crime and identifying the perp in said crime.

The samples are not complete. How does a perp deposit a partial sample of his/her DNA? In other words, if it were deposited during the crime, how did it instantaneously degrade and where is the rest of it?

 

[little1]

The investigators never denied its existence. They deny its importance in solving the crime and identifying the perp in said crime.

The samples are not complete. How does a perp deposit a partial sample of his/her DNA? In other words, if it were deposited during the crime, how did it instantaneously degrade and where is the rest of it?

This is what I cannot understand, I read in some places that the DNA is degraded, in others--that it is not. Where is a link I can go to to tell me, without having to rely on others opinions

 

[Britt]

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...

True. But the fact remains that the teensy, incomplete DNA samples in this case will never solve the case by identifying the perp(s) and it is therefore not a DNA case.

The DNA isn't utterly useless for every investigative purpose; but it IS useless for identifying the killer and solving the case. IOW, regardless of the questions it can answer, it can never answer the biggie: who killed JB? And it is therefore not a DNA case.

Maxi and K777angel - excellent posts.

 

[sissi]

Where is anyone getting this "stutter".."degraded".."small sample"..information?
The "gold standard" for the FBI has always been 13 codis. This is a qualifying sample,please ,to those that say otherwise,source your information.
IMO JMO

 

[little1]

If it cannot be used to match, then why now are they doing this? WHy didn't they just say, "It cannot be used to make a match?"

 

[Britt]

Where is anyone getting this "stutter".."degraded".."small sample"..information?
The "gold standard" for the FBI has always been 13 codis. This is a qualifying sample,please ,to those that say otherwise,source your information.

You gotta look past the Ramsey spin, sissi.

Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/12-30-2003/20031230114502_07.html

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, PHD, DNA EXPERT: The evidence is the evidence. It‘s the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. ...Now, I must say if they‘re using this special technology called low copy DNA, then it‘s a matter of interpretation. We have to be very careful because you can get some confusing results at times.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3840387/

So.... it appears they used the partial sample to "work up" a "new DNA profile" using DNA hi-tech replication techniques.

Or not?

How about a Ramsey supporter come up with a (scientific/official) source that says otherwise? Where is your souce that there is a complete, intact, nondegraded DNA sample?

 

[sissi]

You gotta look past the Ramsey spin, sissi.

Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/12-30-2003/20031230114502_07.html

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, PHD, DNA EXPERT: The evidence is the evidence. It‘s the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. ...Now, I must say if they‘re using this special technology called low copy DNA, then it‘s a matter of interpretation. We have to be very careful because you can get some confusing results at times.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3840387/

So.... it appears they used the partial sample to "work up" a "new DNA profile" using DNA hi-tech replication techniques.

Or not?

How about a Ramsey supporter come up with a (scientific/official) source that says otherwise? Where is your souce that there is a complete, intact, nondegraded DNA sample?

This is the direct quote from
KOBILINSKY: Well, actually that‘s not true. The evidence is the evidence. It‘s the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. In fact, the tests have become more sensitive, more reliable, more rapid, and, in fact, this is the reason that we can now hope that there may be a solution to this case. The national database requires 13 pieces of information, 13 genotypes, if you will, and if you have far less than that—for example, if you come up with only six—then you cannot enter it into the database. It becomes incomplete.

But now using some of the newer technology, you can deliver more information and ultimately check that database. And if there‘s a hit, they will know immediately. Obviously, we have not heard about a hit, so now the hope is that this result will provide a solution in the future. And what that simply means is if this individual who committed this crime were to commit a crime again in the future and perhaps he‘ll have to turn his DNA in for testing, at that point he will be linked to this crime as well.

Please explain the spin you provided by eliminating his entire statement on the same subject?

IMO IMO

Why would you quote this man,adding your own words to make us think it was part of his statement!!!?

 

[Britt]

This is the direct quote from
KOBILINSKY: Well, actually that‘s not true. The evidence is the evidence. It‘s the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. In fact, the tests have become more sensitive, more reliable, more rapid, and, in fact, this is the reason that we can now hope that there may be a solution to this case. The national database requires 13 pieces of information, 13 genotypes, if you will, and if you have far less than that—for example, if you come up with only six—then you cannot enter it into the database. It becomes incomplete.

But now using some of the newer technology, you can deliver more information and ultimately check that database. And if there‘s a hit, they will know immediately. Obviously, we have not heard about a hit, so now the hope is that this result will provide a solution in the future. And what that simply means is if this individual who committed this crime were to commit a crime again in the future and perhaps he‘ll have to turn his DNA in for testing, at that point he will be linked to this crime as well.

Please explain the spin you provided by eliminating his entire statement on the same subject?

IMO IMO

Why would you quote this man,adding your own words to make us think it was part of his statement!!!?

Excuse me? I didn't add my owns words to his quote! I quoted the relevant points and provided the link to the full interview.

From the interview:

TACOPINA: Larry, how accurate is DNA when it comes to tracking down possible suspects?

Well, OK, Doctor, thanks. We lost you, so we‘re going to go right to our legal panel who is standing by, thank God. Oh, Larry is back. I understand Larry is back with us. Larry, did you hear that question?

KOBILINSKY: Yes, I did.

TACOPINA: OK, let me ask it again.

KOBILINSKY: The answer...

TACOPINA: How accurate...

KOBILINSKY: Sure.

TACOPINA: ... is DNA evidence in tracking down possible suspects? Is it reliable? Is it fool proof?

KOBILINSKY: DNA testing is very reliable. You either get the right answer or you get no answer at all. Now, I must say if they‘re using this special technology called low copy DNA, then it‘s a matter of interpretation. We have to be very careful because you can get some confusing results at times.

Edited to add: And sissi, I might ask you why you deleted Kobilinsky's above statement from your quote...

 

[sissi]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3840387/

 

[Britt]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3840387/

The entire exchange:

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, PHD, DNA EXPERT: Hi. A pleasure to be with you.
TACOPINA: So what—why all of a sudden after all these years is this evidence good evidence? Why is it of a higher quality now than it was six years ago?
KOBILINSKY: Well, actually that‘s not true. The evidence is the evidence. It‘s the same evidence that existed seven years ago, but what has changed are the tests to analyze the DNA. In fact, the tests have become more sensitive, more reliable, more rapid, and, in fact, this is the reason that we can now hope that there may be a solution to this case. The national database requires 13 pieces of information, 13 genotypes, if you will, and if you have far less than that—for example, if you come up with only six—then you cannot enter it into the database. It becomes incomplete. But now using some of the newer technology, you can deliver more information and ultimately check that database. And if there‘s a hit, they will know immediately. Obviously, we have not heard about a hit, so now the hope is that this result will provide a solution in the future. And what that simply means is if this individual who committed this crime were to commit a crime again in the future and perhaps he‘ll have to turn his DNA in for testing, at that point he will be linked to this crime as well.
TACOPINA: Larry, how accurate is DNA when it comes to tracking down possible suspects?
Well, OK, Doctor, thanks. We lost you, so we‘re going to go right to our legal panel who is standing by, thank God. Oh, Larry is back. I understand Larry is back with us. Larry, did you hear that question?
KOBILINSKY: Yes, I did.
TACOPINA: OK, let me ask it again.
KOBILINSKY: The answer...
TACOPINA: How accurate...
KOBILINSKY: Sure.
TACOPINA: ... is DNA evidence in tracking down possible suspects? Is it reliable? Is it fool proof?
KOBILINSKY: DNA testing is very reliable. You either get the right answer or you get no answer at all. Now, I must say if they‘re using this special technology called low copy DNA, then it‘s a matter of interpretation. We have to be very careful because you can get some confusing results at times.
TACOPINA: Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, thank you very much. Now, I guess, the question is what does all this DNA mean for the future of the JonBenet Ramsey investigation? Let‘s get our legal panel back in here, Court TV anchor and former prosecutor Lisa Bloom, criminal defense attorney Gary Casimir, criminal defense attorney Joe Episcopo, and former prosecutor Colin Murray.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3840387/

 

[sissi]

Britt,when you put the line in,I felt it odd that you didn't use the entire passage,yet included the first lines from the initial exchange ,eliminated the body of the exchange ,then continued on with that little passage. I find this often,when the topic is not to one's liking they choose selective editing,IMO,it's a dishonest presentation. JMO IMO

 

[Britt]

Britt,when you put the line in,I felt it odd that you didn't use the entire passage,yet included the first lines from the initial exchange ,eliminated the body of the exchange ,then continued on with that little passage. I find this often,when the topic is not to one's liking they choose selective editing,IMO,it's a dishonest presentation.

Is that an apology for wrongly accusing me of inventing quotes? Okay, I accept.

Perhaps you didn't notice my ellipses in my original quote.

No, sissi, if I were being dishonest I would not have included ellipses to indicate edited material nor the link to the full interview.

 

[Britt]

Anyway...

The point I was making remains the same: It appears they used the partial, incomplete, degraded DNA sample to "work up" a "new DNA profile" using DNA hi-tech replication techniques. This is contrary to the Ramsey spin suggesting there was an intact nondegraded sample being hidden by the BPD and just now submitted to the FBI database. (Talk about "dishonest"!)

Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/12-30-2003/20031230114502_07.html

(See the link for the full article, as I have selectively edited )

Test results "were not of high-enough quality"? In other words, they didn't have a viable full nondegraded sample. If an intruder had left his DNA at the crime scene, there would be no problem with the "quality" of the samples.

 

[sissi]

I read the entire transcript,for the most part it was very pro Ramsey,the doctor being a man of science is always going to add an "IF",however his overall point of view was expressed IMO as being a positive one ,suggesting the dna will one day find the killer. His "IF" was just that,he was wondering .

I suggest this as a perfect example of how we can interpret information to suit our theories. Surely this man,this entire transcript in fact ,indicated the dna is providing a new hope for the solving of this murder.

IMO everyone should read the transcript and decide for themselves what to "make of it".

 

[Ivy]

What a shock! The DNA has brought no hits in the FBI database! Why, I'm absolutely flabbergasted! lol

Why doesn't someone in authority have the courage to step forward and say the emperor has no clothes? This DNA bs is absurd.

 

[K777angel]

It needs to be said that just because a crime scene might have someone's DNA - it does NOT necessarily mean that that person is the one who committed the crime. You MUST look at all of the circumstances of that scene and the crime also in order to determine if it fits with all the other known facts.
I think there is this conception in society that DNA is some kind of magic answer in and of itself. We must be careful to analyze the entire crime before jumping to any conclusions.
The discovery and science of DNA is indeed a remarkable one. But we must use this science properly and with good judgement. You cannot simply exclude and ignore all other aspects of a crime because some DNA was found.
It "may" not have anything to do with the crime itself.

I think this is what has been the case in the JonBenet Ramsey crime.
The whole of the circumstances and evidence do not point to an intruder and therefore, while any DNA found at the scene must be analyzed and considered, it must be done so in the complete context of all other known evidence and facts of the case in order to determine IF indeed it points to part of the crime.

Lin Wood swears it does. The ball is now in HIS (Ramsey) court to prove it.

The silence on the test results of this magic new DNA is deafning.