Toltec... Ivy... exactly! I'm no DNA scientist (obviously), so I hope my questions make sense:
MIBRO said:
How can it be assumed it is not connected to the crime?
Because we can compare the condition of the unidentified DNA to JB's DNA. We know for a fact that JB's DNA is connected to the crime, and it is logical to assume that any other DNA deposited at the same time would be in the same condition - that is, the same state of being intact or degraded - as JB's DNA.
How can part of the DNA material (JB's) be intact and part of it (the unidentified part) be degraded/partial/incomplete. DNA doesn't drop out of the body in a degraded state. You can't deposit a
part of a cell with partial DNA (unless you're a genetic scientist, I guess). Something has to
make it degrade. So, why did
only the unidentified part become degraded? IOW, why is it that JB's was identifiable as an intact sample and the other not?
Why_nutt's example up above there is an excellent one, near as I can tell, and answers the question. But for those of you who disagree, please explain how this apparent scientific impossibility can happen - that DNA deposited in the same place at the same time under the same conditions can degrade (for lack of a better term) in different ways at different rates.
It was found on the victim, mingled with her own DNA, in blood, freshly spilled during the course of the crime.
That doesn't change the incomplete state of the unidentified DNA. Why was JB's part complete and the other not? See above questions.
JonBenét's DNA profile is complete due to the fact that there was plenty of tissue to extract it from at autopsy. In the mixed DNA samples, her DNA "markers" can be identified by the "markers" from her full profile.
And yet there weren't enough markers in the unidentified samples to even have a profile until they were able to "work up" a profile using newer replication(?) techniques. Even if they didn't have a perp for comparison, if the foreign DNA had been deposited at the crime scene it should have been full, intact, all-markers accounted for, samples, not partial samples. Right?