Shylock
Former Member
Either you didn't read my last post, or you didn't understand it. We're not talking about, or concerned with anything to do with JBR.MIBRO said:DNA profile of unknown donor = peaks not matching JBR's.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Either you didn't read my last post, or you didn't understand it. We're not talking about, or concerned with anything to do with JBR.MIBRO said:DNA profile of unknown donor = peaks not matching JBR's.
Either you didn't read my last post, or you didn't understand it. We're not talking about, or concerned with anything to do with JBR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIBRO
Shylock, mixed stains can be separated quite easily.
It is not a "mish mash" of confusion for the scientists to separate the known from the unknown. Forensic scientists are quite capable of separting mixed stains of, not only more than one contributor, but of multiple contributors.
MIBRO, it sounds like you're pretty lost when it comes to DNA technology. You quoted passages from Lee's book, but then your comments make it obvious you don't understand what he's talking about.
A perfect example is your statement about scientists being able to "separate the known from the unknown". That's true - and they were certainly able to separate JonBenet's own/known DNA from the fractured mystery DNA.
HOWEVER, what they can't do is separate the unknown from the unknown.
The fractured mystery DNA found on JonBenet could very well be a mish-mash of more than one person. But because they don't have a control sample (or samples) of any of the mystery donors, they have no idea how many people are in the mash and where to even begin to start separating them.
This is why the experts from CellMark told the BPD that if the fractured DNA is from more than donor then nobody, including the Ramsey males, could be excluded as possible donors.
To make it simple for you, imagine a person who has no knowledge of color looking into a bucket of red, green, and blue marbles. That person sees no difference at all in the marbles--the are all the same. But now give that person a red marble, tell him it's "red", and they are able to pick ALL the red marbles out of the bucket.
The fractured mystery DNA in the JonBenet case has no red marble to separate from the mish-mash.
Well, in reply, to start with I do not have Lee's book so I definitely DID NOT quote from it. I quoted from "Interpretation of Complex Forensic DNA Mixtures" (as noted in my post) contributed to the Croatian Medical Journal, 2001, by Carll Ladd, Henry C. Lee, Nicholas Yang, and Frederick R. Bieber
Secondly, of course they can separate out the unknown DNA. They have submitted IT TO CODIS!
("The detection and interpretation of mixtures is a routine, yet often challenging aspect of forensic DNA analysis. Occasionally we have observed profiles from highly degraded/low DNA quantify samples where one amplication kit detects multiple contributors, whereas the other system does not.")
Thirdly, my reply to you was to point out your erroneous statements that the DNA is a mish-mash. To point out that, of course, they can separate out the victim's DNA and to point out that they can separate out the UNKNOWN contributor(s) as well.
You have misrepresented the DNA facts all around, Shylock, and your marble example is YOUR view, not the reality of DNA analysis. It really is a shame that you are contributing to the misunderstanding of such a fine and valuable science.
Let me see if I can explain it to YOU, Shylock (as simply as possible). The very specific locations for DNA identification show two different peaks at each site (loci). One peak matches JonBenet's, the other 'identifies' the unknown contributor: Two different peaks, two different donors. At each loci the non-matching peaks (to JB's known sample) = the unknown donor's peaks. DNA profile of unknown donor = peaks not matching JBR's.
Totally wrong MIBRO. Unfortunately you were not around when we had multiple long threads about "post-mortem bruising". I suggest you punch that phrase into Google and read all about it. Photos were even posted here showing autopsy examples of post-mortem bruising.MIBRO said:The presence of the ligature marks around JonBenét's neck as shown in the autopsy photos means she was strangled by ligature.
HOW do marks APPEAR ("the cord left a red hemorage mark") POST-MORTEM? Ummm, Shylock, the body doesn't hemorrhage after death ergo no POST-MORTEM hemorrhage marks.
No, we are NOT on the same planet. And NO the facts are NOT still the same.MIBRO said:Are we on the same planet?
The FACTS are STILL the same:
I think that comment refers to the fact that there are a million places JonBenet could have touched where she picked up someone's DNA which was eventually transfered to her panties during a trip to the bathroom.Toth said:Everyone knows that Lee's "spitting on the sidewalk" stuff is nonsense from a practical point of view.
BlueCrab,BlueCrab said:Most often, any foreign DNA found at a crime scene is from just one source. Therefore, it is most likely that the foreign DNA found on JonBenet is from one source.
Well "DUH", Toth...isn't that what I just said?Toth said:The comment refers to Lee's oft-repeated example of finding some bodily fluid on the crime-scene sidewalk and thinking it is entirely related to the crime rather than possibly composed of both crime-related dna and some innocently acquired dna such as on a prior occasion someone expectorated at what later became a crime scene.
You're right Ivy, he can't. And that "scratched her attacker" nonsense didn't even originate with Limp Woody, that was pure B.S. concocted by JammySkank.Ivy said:Toth, please post a reliable, non-Lin Wood-based source that states that foreign skin cells or foreign blood cells were found under JonBenet's fingernails, providing evidence that she scratched her attacker.
LovelyPigeon said:When a person is sexually assaulted and/or murdered, DNA is sought from the victim's nail clippings, from the underwear, and from the point of sexual assault (rape kit swabs).
DNA found on the victim and not identified as belonging to the victim becomes poential evidence that the DNA belongs to the person who committed the assault and/or murder.
This is every day, typical, logical, forensic thinking. Cases are solved nearly everyday by comparing the DNA from a victim's nails and a victim's clothing to the DNA of the suspect and finding a "match".
It's ridiculous to say JonBenét's case should be an exception and just disregard unidentified male DNA from her nail clippings and the crotch of her blood-stained panties!
And why, exactly, would "they" do that? Why would anyone, much less LE professionals, give a one way or the other?Toth said:They just don't want to admit it becauxe then the Ramseys would be viewed as innocent.
Okay, LP, now I'm asking you to provide a legitimate, official declaration that the fingernails DNA and the panties DNA are from the same source. Can you do that? Of course not.LovelyPigeon claims that...
It's ridiculous to say JonBenét's case should be an exception and just disregard unidentified male DNA from her nail clippings and the crotch of her blood-stained panties!
LOL Ivy!Ivy said:It wasn't found "comingled" with JonBenet's blood. It was "comingled" with her blood in the DNA lab and possibly before that to some extent, when JonBenet's blood dripped onto a skosh of Sum Yung Gai's old dried sneeze-spit from the factory.