Dna -Merged-

[BBB167893]

"Dr. Henry Lee keeps talking about the blood spot in her underwear that is male DNA. Is he wrong?"

No, but there is some confusion there. The blood itself was from JB herself. It mixed with male DNA that was already there.

 

[T-Rex]

Speaking of DNA...if the Bloomie's bloomers were manufactured in Thailand, can't they checkthe DNA for ethnicity?

 

[MrsMush99]

Yes, I believe they can. The said the DNA came from a white male.

 

[Bev]

there are certain mtdna haloptype groupings that can certainly tell you a general region - for example there are @ 7 groupings in Europe and if your ancestors were European, then you are probably descended from one of those groupings. The problem with this particular case, is that mtdna is shared by an extremely large group of people. Now consider this - Lin Wood claims that this particular dna is of a "white male" but many black Americans have no mtdna of African origin. Therefore, it is possible to be of a different ethnic group with similar mtdna to "white males".

While mtdna can exclude people, it is not the precise "fingerprint" that people think it is. Wood claims that this dna was Codis standard, which means that the dna found had to have been nuclear dna which is more precise in identification. Nuclear dna is found by using a method called STR testing. It generally looks at five or six loci or regions of the chromosomes which are highly variable. Codis standard is 13 loci or regions bar coded. Henry Lee has said over and over that this dna is "incomplete" and I think that this is what he's referring to - that it isn't Codis standard as Wood claims. In fact, they may have developed a more complete mtdna profile, while the sample was just too degraded for nuclear dna testing, even with str testing. Sometimes the dna is too fragmented even for today's str testing or it showed only a few regions.

 

[BBB167893]

"The said the DNA came from a white male."

No, that's what the Ramsey LAWYERS claim! To my knowledge, you still can't tell race from DNA.

 

[Britt]

Looks like a good place to put a copy of my prior post:

Re the Ramsey claim of the foreign DNA being Caucasian (and therefore not from an Asian factory worker where the underwear were manufactured)...

At Forums For Justice Tricia posted what a professional criminalist told her about the DNA:

Excerpts:
...you can look at the statistics for a regular DNA sample and make a guess for race based on whichever race has the best stats. However, I am a Caucasian mutt with some Native American (Mongoloid) thrown in, yet my stats would suggest that I'm African-American! So while you might get an "indication" of race, it's by no means accurate -- it's basically just an educated guess.

***
But if the DNA is from semen or saliva or blood, then the DNA would only be an accurate indicator of gender, and the race would basically be a big guess.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6994&page=3&pp=12

SuperDave is right. The Caucasian claim is Ramsey spin.

 

[rashomon]

"Dr. Henry Lee keeps talking about the blood spot in her underwear that is male DNA. Is he wrong?"

No, but there is some confusion there. The blood itself was from JB herself. It mixed with male DNA that was already there.

SuperDave or others - could you please help me with this: a poster on another forum wrote:

It's important to remember that the same DNA profile was obtained from 2 different blood spots found on Jon Benet's clothing.

Is this true? Were there two different bloodspots from JB with the same foreign DNA in them? Where can I look up info on the DNA issue, for example the info that the male DNA was already there? Thanks in advance for your replies!

 

[BBB167893]

I think the spots had the same because it was already there in a "scattershot pattern" when she bled into it, rashomon.

www.jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com has a news article about it.

 

[tumble]

Yes, as if someone has caughed or sneezed at the panties.
As the DNA were much more degraded than JBR's it was probably not deposited at the same time.

 

[joe jones]

It is only a partial DNA profile, due to the fact that the blood spot in her underwear that revealed the profile was tested in 2003 (I think it was this year) so had degraded somewhat,


so it won't match the usual 13 sites that a full match would,

IMO it will be for the purpose of showing yes he matches this partial profile and then they get the evidence of his being in boulder, hopefully he then speaks to the specifics of the crime, ie did he target Jon Benet or was he just after a little girl that night, how did he get in the home etc,

or the DNA can be used to eliminate him,

either way once the tests are done the DA will know which way to go,

 

[cricket]

I'm new to following this case, but I thought I had read that the only "print" they found was a partial palm print - not a finger print. If that is true - it would mean that even if the investigators who were following him Thailand got a fingerprint on the sly, they still wouldn't be able to match it. Hope I'm making sense. Does anyone who has been following this case know if there were actual fingerprints at the scene?

Another question I have - were any "private" (Ramsey) investigators in Thailand? If spo, couldn't they have picked up a cup or something else that he drank out of and submitted it for private testing? I don't think it's illegal to pick up something someone else else has tossed (in the trash, etc.). LE might not want to do it, because they couldn't use it, but what would stop a private investigator from doing that?

 

[Camper]

There has never been a published report of ANY fingerprint being found at the crime scene.

That does not mean that there wasn't a fingerprint found, but LE has never acknowledged one being found.

That would indeed be a lucky thing IF IF LE has an actual fingerprint from the crime scene, and IF IF it matches our Mr. K.

.

 

[Wudge]

The quality of foreign DNA found on Jon Benet's body has been much discussed over the years.

If DNA tests exclude Karr and the D.A. chooses not to try him based on that finding, we can conclude that the quality of the DNA found at the crime scene was deemed to be very high quality evidence.

If the DNA tests exclude Karr but the D.A. still decides to try him by claiming that the DNA at the crime scene was too weak to be conclusive, yet a jury were to acquit Karr based on the DNA exclusion, then we can reasonably conclude that the jury saw the strength of DNA exclusion to be too significant to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And if that were to be a jury's finding for Karr, it is reasonable to conclude that a DNA exclusion would almost assuredly prevent anyone from ever being convicted of the murder.

So the scene is potentially setting up for the true strength of the DNA evidence to be made publically known, and, perhaps, be the sole conviction card forever after.

Remember too that DNA testing excluded the Ramseys.

 

[tumble]

No how could it be, it is only partial.

It is more degraded than JBR DNA indicating it was deposited at an earlier time.

Remember too that DNA testing excluded the Ramseys.

No it hasn't. If it is the crime you are referring to.

 

[Buzz Mills]

No how could it be, it is only partial.

It is more degraded than JBR DNA indicating it was deposited at an earlier time.

Remember too that DNA testing excluded the Ramseys.

No it hasn't. If it is the crime you are referring to.

The DNA, from what I understand was good enough to be entered into CODIS--someone said the minimum for that is 10 markers. So it is good enough to convict.

 

[Wudge]

The DNA, from what I understand was good enough to be entered into CODIS--someone said the minimum for that is 10 markers. So it is good enough to convict.

Yes, but the question is: Is it good enough to prevent people who do not match from being tried or, if tried, convicted? If so, we have an ultimate trump card: Exclusion.

 

[Buzz Mills]

No how could it be, it is only partial.

It is more degraded than JBR DNA indicating it was deposited at an earlier time.

Remember too that DNA testing excluded the Ramseys.

No it hasn't. If it is the crime you are referring to.

Later developments
In December 2003, forensic investigators extracted enough material from a mixed blood sample found on JonBenét's underwear to establish a DNA profile. The DNA belongs to an unknown male. The DNA was submitted to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database containing more than 1.6 million DNA profiles, mainly from convicted felons. The sample has yet to find a match in the database, although it continues to be checked for partial matches on a weekly basis.

Later investigations also discovered that there were more than 100 burglaries in the Ramseys' neighborhood in the months before JonBenét's murder, and that 38 registered sex offenders were living within a two-mile radius of the Ramsey's home.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenét_Ramsey

 

[cricket]

There has never been a published report of ANY fingerprint being found at the crime scene.

That does not mean that there wasn't a fingerprint found, but LE has never acknowledged one being found.

That would indeed be a lucky thing IF IF LE has an actual fingerprint from the crime scene, and IF IF it matches our Mr. K.

.

thanks camper!

 

[Lauren]

There will be no DNA ties to this.

 

[Buzz Mills]

DNA found at the scene of the crime can be compared with DNA extracted from the blood of suspects. Researchers typically characterize the exact structure of a number of "markers" or regions in DNA that tend to differ greatly among individuals. Colorado Bureau of Investigation researchers target 13 markers when comparing the DNA of suspects and evidence.

In the JonBenet Ramsey case, CBI investigators performed their own analysis, and then sent evidence to Cellmark for additional testing of other markers, Mang said.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/27-2.html