Do you think a Stungun was used?

[BBB167893]

"That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police."

I don’t believe you. I am quite confident that you are mistaken. Prove it.

Try this:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

THOMAS: Nobody at this -- nobody at this table is a DNA expert, and the DNA experts in this case, at the time I left, had told us this is not a DNA case because of issues: degradation, contamination.

J. RAMSEY: There is unidentified DNA that was found under her fingernails and on her underwear.

KING: It could have been there from five day ago.

or this:

http://www.red dit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/2usb0m/excerpts_from_chief_james_kolars_book_relating_to/

or this:

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jonbenet-ramsey/investigation

Some partial and degraded traces of DNA were collected from JonBenet’s underwear and fingernails. It was later determined to be male DNA, however, due to the damage and fragmentation in the samples collected, it was impossible to trace its origins. Indeed, the presence of DNA may be innocuous, as demonstrated by investigators who tested new underwear bought from a department store and who also found trace DNA, possibly from contamination at the plant.

I think Kolar sums it up best:

this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation

I'm beginning to see why some people thought that when FF came out that I was Chief Kolar: he and I think alike! (I may have missed my calling in life.)

Eagerly anticipating STRIKE THREE!

I'm your huckleberry!

 

[aussiesheila2]

Try this:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

THOMAS: Nobody at this -- nobody at this table is a DNA expert, and the DNA experts in this case, at the time I left, had told us this is not a DNA case because of issues: degradation, contamination.

J. RAMSEY: There is unidentified DNA that was found under her fingernails and on her underwear.

KING: It could have been there from five day ago.

or this:

http://www.red dit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/2usb0m/excerpts_from_chief_james_kolars_book_relating_to/

or this:

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jonbenet-ramsey/investigation

Some partial and degraded traces of DNA were collected from JonBenet’s underwear and fingernails. It was later determined to be male DNA, however, due to the damage and fragmentation in the samples collected, it was impossible to trace its origins. Indeed, the presence of DNA may be innocuous, as demonstrated by investigators who tested new underwear bought from a department store and who also found trace DNA, possibly from contamination at the plant.

I think Kolar sums it up best:

this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation

I'm beginning to see why some people thought that when FF came out that I was Chief Kolar: he and I think alike! (I may have missed my calling in life.)



I'm your huckleberry!

SuperDave - you stated in your post #157

"It's not disinformation to say the other DNA was not fresh. That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police."

AK disputed this statement of yours asking you to provide proof

Your reply to him in no way came anywhere near providing any truth to your original statement

We would like to see a quote from the Cellmark Lab techs stating the DNA was not fresh or at least a statement from police that the Cellmark Lab techs stated to them the DNA was not fresh. We know you can't

We know that Cellmark Lab techs would never have stated such a thing, so unless you can provide proof that they did you should apologise for writing such an untrue statement and presenting it as fact

 

[aussiesheila2]

Try this:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

THOMAS: Nobody at this -- nobody at this table is a DNA expert, and the DNA experts in this case, at the time I left, had told us this is not a DNA case because of issues: degradation, contamination.

J. RAMSEY: There is unidentified DNA that was found under her fingernails and on her underwear.

KING: It could have been there from five day ago.

or this:

http://www.red dit.com/r/JonBenet/...pts_from_chief_james_kolars_book_relating_to/

or this:

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jonbenet-ramsey/investigation

Some partial and degraded traces of DNA were collected from JonBenet’s underwear and fingernails. It was later determined to be male DNA, however, due to the damage and fragmentation in the samples collected, it was impossible to trace its origins. Indeed, the presence of DNA may be innocuous, as demonstrated by investigators who tested new underwear bought from a department store and who also found trace DNA, possibly from contamination at the plant.

I think Kolar sums it up best:

this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation

I'm beginning to see why some people thought that when FF came out that I was Chief Kolar: he and I think alike! (I may have missed my calling in life.)



I'm your huckleberry!

SuperDave - you stated in your post #157

"It's not disinformation to say the other DNA was not fresh. That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police."

AK disputed this statement of yours asking you to provide proof

Your reply to him in no way came anywhere near providing any truth to your original statement

I would like to see a quote from the Cellmark Lab techs stating the DNA was not fresh or at least a statement from police that the Cellmark Lab techs stated to them the DNA was not fresh. I know you can't because I know that Cellmark Lab techs would never made such an absurd statement, so unless you can provide proof that they did you should apologise for writing such an untrue statement and presenting it as fact

 

[andreww]

Not sure about Dave's source, but this is interesting....

However, in a September letter sent to the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory that was obtained by The Sun, Robin W. Cotton, a director of technical forensic science for Cellmark, wrote that the company fired DNA analyst Sarah Blair for "professional misconduct" after discovering that she apparently substituted data for some control samples.

Despite its impressive history, Cellmark's credibility has been called into question before. In 2001, a faulty DNA test conducted by the lab incorrectly determined that a British man was not the father of his 14-month- old daughter.

In a San Diego sexual assault case, the lab apparently switched sample labels for the victim and the suspect. This led Cellmark to incorrectly determine that the suspect's DNA was found on the victim. The error was discovered during the 1995 trial.

 

[Anti-K]

Try this:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

THOMAS: Nobody at this -- nobody at this table is a DNA expert, and the DNA experts in this case, at the time I left, had told us this is not a DNA case because of issues: degradation, contamination.

J. RAMSEY: There is unidentified DNA that was found under her fingernails and on her underwear.

KING: It could have been there from five day ago.

or this:

http://www.red dit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/2usb0m/excerpts_from_chief_james_kolars_book_relating_to/

or this:

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jonbenet-ramsey/investigation

Some partial and degraded traces of DNA were collected from JonBenet’s underwear and fingernails. It was later determined to be male DNA, however, due to the damage and fragmentation in the samples collected, it was impossible to trace its origins. Indeed, the presence of DNA may be innocuous, as demonstrated by investigators who tested new underwear bought from a department store and who also found trace DNA, possibly from contamination at the plant.

I think Kolar sums it up best:

this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation

I'm beginning to see why some people thought that when FF came out that I was Chief Kolar: he and I think alike! (I may have missed my calling in life.)



I'm your huckleberry!

You’re striking out in spectacular fashion.

Nothing that you posted here or linked to (one of your links was dead) supports your claim in any way, shape or form. You have failed to show us that Cellmark, or any expert, told the police (or, anyone else) that the DNA was “not fresh,” just as you failed to back up your claim that the DNA is in CODIS because of political pressure.

In fact, your post simply confirms my contention that you do not understand the subject. There’s nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about here; it can be a complex subject and I think that most posters have some difficulty with it. I’m certainly no expert. But, I do have a pretty decent grasp of the essentials.

So, let me help.

I suspect that it is the term “degradation” that might have you confused.

Degradation does not tell us anything about the age of a DNA sample. Degradation simply means that the sample has been damaged in some way; it has become fragmented. This is most often due to environmental factors, but it can even happen during the collection and/or handling phase – DNA is fragile.

Age, or “freshness,” has nothing to do with it.

In this specific case, with this specific sample, we should expect there to be some degradation, at least, we should not be surprised by it. Remember, DNA is most often degraded (damaged) due to environmental factors. The longer a sample takes to dry the more likely it is to degrade. It’s (probably) saliva (DNA in saliva is actually skin cells sloughed off in the mouth) and enzymes in saliva degrade DNA; it is on the inside crotch of urine soaked panties, covered by leggings and a blanket. These are harsh environmental conditions for DNA. Harsh, indeed.

So, nothing that you’ve quoted or linked to mentions the DNA being “not fresh,” and, to my amusement, what you quoted and linked to doesn’t even address the DNA sample that we’re discussing!!!
.

Kolar’s critical thinking skills are appalling.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Hmm, today I was reading something whilst searching Cellmark that said that DNA starts to degrade the moment it is deposited. That would indicate that there is definitely a relationship between time and degradation.

DNA also begins to deteriorate the moment it is shed. The older it is, the hotter or moister it has been kept, and the nature of the surface, all effect tests.

 

[Anti-K]

Hmm, today I was reading something whilst searching Cellmark that said that DNA starts to degrade the moment it is deposited. That would indicate that there is definitely a relationship between time and degradation.

Sure, time can have some effect. Of course. But, you can still get good results from DNA that is hundreds (and, more) years old; right? And, look at your quote: the hotter or moister it has been kept, and the nature of the surface, all effect tests. Exactly what I’m saying.

I also read the article <1> you&#8217;re quoting and there is nothing in it that says that age (or, &#8220;not fresh&#8221 can be determined by degradation.

<1> http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon27.htm
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave - you stated in your post #157

"It's not disinformation to say the other DNA was not fresh. That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police."

AK disputed this statement of yours asking you to provide proof

Your reply to him in no way came anywhere near providing any truth to your original statement

I would like to see a quote from the Cellmark Lab techs stating the DNA was not fresh or at least a statement from police that the Cellmark Lab techs stated to them the DNA was not fresh. I know you can't because I know that Cellmark Lab techs would never made such an absurd statement, so unless you can provide proof that they did you should apologise for writing such an untrue statement and presenting it as fact

Oh, I'm not apologizing for anything. Not now, not ever.

But I will give what you want:

PMPT pb p 182
"During the same week (note: Jan 1997), the CBI discovered that the stain found on JonBenét's panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenét's DNA was the major component, but there was a minor componenet consisting of DNA from another person - or possibly more than one. The CBI told the police that the Ramseys' neighbor, Joe Barnhill could not be eliminated if the minor component originated from two or more sources. Further testing would take several months, the lab said."

The CBI tests were PCR (PMPT pb p240) "The CBI had already (note: prior to Feb 1997) determined that the stain on JonBenét's underpants ... was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources. {Footnote: A D1S80 test is a PCR-based test that measures the genetic marker known as D1S80 on the DNA strand.)"

Then the evidence was transferred for further examination to Cellmark. (PMPT pb p227) "Test results can take from several days to weeks using the PCR method of testing, RFLP typing takes months. In some cases it can take up to ten months to obtain test results because the lab is so backlogged.

ST - JBITRMI, pb p204
"When the preliminary DNA results came back from the CellMark labs, .... That early report was very ambiguous. We would get a more thorough briefing in five months and would hold this early material as confidential." (note: confidential as in out of the hands of the DA's office)

p 298-300
The detectives had consulted a couple of experts in an attempt to answer four questions concerning the DNA issues: What did we have? What did it reveal? Where do we go now? Would DNA solve this case?

A special briefing by molecular biologist Melissa Weber of Cellmark Laboratories and Kathy Dressel of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation provided no miracles. The results remained frustrating and ambiguous, and even the experts did not agree on everything. Among their findings was that the DNA might not be related to the murder at all. Other results were open to interpretation.
· A head hair found at the scene appeared to belong to JonBenét.
· The primary DNA from the panties also appeared to be from her. But a secondary DNA source may have been present. If that secondary material was a mixture from two or more people, then the labs could exclude no one. Faint DNA results may have been due to “technical or stutter artifact.”
It might be as simple as JonBenét having put on a playmate’s underwear in which foreign DNA already existed. On the other hand, the mixture that had been found was complicated by a myriad of technical factors, including quality, quantity, degradation, and possible contamination. That meant that excluding people might be possible, but positive identification was unlikely.
· The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenét appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any male as the donor of a secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days.
· The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguous, with JonBenét again appearing to be the primary donor and once again an unidentified secondary male DNA present.
· They drew no firm conclusions regarding the pubic hair. It was deemed, however, that it might not be a pubic hair at all but possibly a hair from a chest or beneath an arm. That would confuse things even more.

We would later discuss the cleanliness of the victim, including not washing her hands, wetting the bed (comment: no DNA concern with that), not wiping thoroughly after a bowel movement, (comment: no DNA concern with that), and hating to have her fingernails trimmed. Weber said that the DNA beneath the fingernails could have come from anywhere, particularly if it had been there for several days, and that degradation was a concern.

No retreat, and no surrender.

 

[BBB167893]

You’re striking out in spectacular fashion.

Said the blind pitcher!

Nothing that you posted here or linked to (one of your links was dead) supports your claim in any way, shape or form. You have failed to show us that Cellmark, or any expert, told the police (or, anyone else) that the DNA was “not fresh,” just as you failed to back up your claim that the DNA is in CODIS because of political pressure.

In fact, your post simply confirms my contention that you do not understand the subject. There’s nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about here; it can be a complex subject and I think that most posters have some difficulty with it. I’m certainly no expert. But, I do have a pretty decent grasp of the essentials.

So, let me help.

I suspect that it is the term “degradation” that might have you confused.

Degradation does not tell us anything about the age of a DNA sample. Degradation simply means that the sample has been damaged in some way; it has become fragmented. This is most often due to environmental factors, but it can even happen during the collection and/or handling phase – DNA is fragile.

Age, or “freshness,” has nothing to do with it.

In this specific case, with this specific sample, we should expect there to be some degradation, at least, we should not be surprised by it. Remember, DNA is most often degraded (damaged) due to environmental factors. The longer a sample takes to dry the more likely it is to degrade. It’s (probably) saliva (DNA in saliva is actually skin cells sloughed off in the mouth) and enzymes in saliva degrade DNA; it is on the inside crotch of urine soaked panties, covered by leggings and a blanket. These are harsh environmental conditions for DNA. Harsh, indeed.

So, nothing that you’ve quoted or linked to mentions the DNA being “not fresh,” and, to my amusement, what you quoted and linked to doesn’t even address the DNA sample that we’re discussing!!!
.

Kolar’s critical thinking skills are appalling.
...

AK[/QUOTE]

One, the link I gave is not dead. There's just no effective way of posting it, yet. I'll find a way.

Two, SOMEONE's critical thinking skills are appaling, all right!

Three, I know what I know.

 

[BBB167893]

Hmm, today I was reading something whilst searching Cellmark that said that DNA starts to degrade the moment it is deposited. That would indicate that there is definitely a relationship between time and degradation.

Which brings up the question, andreww: why wasn't the DNA from JB damaged?

 

[andreww]

Which brings up the question, andreww: why wasn't the DNA from JB damaged?

I believe that was probably due to the amount of DNA available Dave. We are comparing discarded skin cells to decent amounts of blood.

 

[DeeDee249]

The DNA from JB was described as "degraded".

 

[Anti-K]

Oh, I'm not apologizing for anything. Not now, not ever.

But I will give what you want:

PMPT pb p 182
"During the same week (note: Jan 1997), the CBI discovered that the stain found on JonBenét's panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenét's DNA was the major component, but there was a minor componenet consisting of DNA from another person - or possibly more than one. The CBI told the police that the Ramseys' neighbor, Joe Barnhill could not be eliminated if the minor component originated from two or more sources. Further testing would take several months, the lab said."

The CBI tests were PCR (PMPT pb p240) "The CBI had already (note: prior to Feb 1997) determined that the stain on JonBenét's underpants ... was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources. {Footnote: A D1S80 test is a PCR-based test that measures the genetic marker known as D1S80 on the DNA strand.)"

Then the evidence was transferred for further examination to Cellmark. (PMPT pb p227) "Test results can take from several days to weeks using the PCR method of testing, RFLP typing takes months. In some cases it can take up to ten months to obtain test results because the lab is so backlogged.

ST - JBITRMI, pb p204
"When the preliminary DNA results came back from the CellMark labs, .... That early report was very ambiguous. We would get a more thorough briefing in five months and would hold this early material as confidential." (note: confidential as in out of the hands of the DA's office)

p 298-300
The detectives had consulted a couple of experts in an attempt to answer four questions concerning the DNA issues: What did we have? What did it reveal? Where do we go now? Would DNA solve this case?

A special briefing by molecular biologist Melissa Weber of Cellmark Laboratories and Kathy Dressel of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation provided no miracles. The results remained frustrating and ambiguous, and even the experts did not agree on everything. Among their findings was that the DNA might not be related to the murder at all. Other results were open to interpretation.
· A head hair found at the scene appeared to belong to JonBenét.
· The primary DNA from the panties also appeared to be from her. But a secondary DNA source may have been present. If that secondary material was a mixture from two or more people, then the labs could exclude no one. Faint DNA results may have been due to &#8220;technical or stutter artifact.&#8221;
It might be as simple as JonBenét having put on a playmate&#8217;s underwear in which foreign DNA already existed. On the other hand, the mixture that had been found was complicated by a myriad of technical factors, including quality, quantity, degradation, and possible contamination. That meant that excluding people might be possible, but positive identification was unlikely.
· The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenét appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any male as the donor of a secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days.
· The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguous, with JonBenét again appearing to be the primary donor and once again an unidentified secondary male DNA present.
· They drew no firm conclusions regarding the pubic hair. It was deemed, however, that it might not be a pubic hair at all but possibly a hair from a chest or beneath an arm. That would confuse things even more.

We would later discuss the cleanliness of the victim, including not washing her hands, wetting the bed (comment: no DNA concern with that), not wiping thoroughly after a bowel movement, (comment: no DNA concern with that), and hating to have her fingernails trimmed. Weber said that the DNA beneath the fingernails could have come from anywhere, particularly if it had been there for several days, and that degradation was a concern.

No retreat, and no surrender.

Good grief.

Nothing that you quoted supports your claim that Cellmark, or anyone, said that the DNA was not fresh. LOL

And, yeah, we were talking about the CODIS sample, you just put in bold a quote regarding the fingernail sample! LOL

Look, SD, I&#8217;ll help you out some more. You will never find a quote to support your claim because the DNA claim and of itself cannot be date stamped. It could be &#8220;not fresh&#8221; or it could be fresh. No one can tell, and that is why no expert ever said that it was &#8220;not fresh.&#8221; But, keep looking; I&#8217;m greatly amused.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Which brings up the question, andreww: why wasn't the DNA from JB damaged?

Go back and read my post 529, above. I explain degraded for you, and why the CODIS sample should have been (and, was) degraded.
...

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

If someone was to use their hands to scrape up loose debris from a carpet, would it be possible for their skin cells be on that particular area of the carpet?

 

[Tawny]

If someone was to use their hands to scrape up loose debris from a carpet, would it be possible for their skin cells be on that particular area of the carpet?

I'd say darn near guaranteed.

 

[DeeDee249]

If someone was to use their hands to scrape up loose debris from a carpet, would it be possible for their skin cells be on that particular area of the carpet?

One would hope that any forensic investigators wore latex gloves- but with the sloppiness of the rest of the investigation, you never know.

 

[icedtea4me]

One would hope that any forensic investigators wore latex gloves- but with the sloppiness of the rest of the investigation, you never know.

I wasn't talking about a forensic investigator.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya SD

fmi,

"It&#8217;s (probably) saliva (DNA in saliva is actually skin cells sloughed off in the mouth) and enzymes in saliva degrade DNA"

http://blog.dnagenotek.com/blogdnag...-Spit-What-s-the-Real-Source-of-DNA-in-Saliva

" Over the past few years, saliva has become recognized as a very important and reliable alternative to blood samples for genetic research, clinical diagnostics, personalized medicine and more. What exactly is it that makes saliva such a good alternative to blood for genetic applications? It all comes down to the source of DNA in saliva.Surprisingly, many people I spoke with assumed the source of DNA in saliva is strictly buccal epithelial cells, however, studies show that up to 74%(1) of the DNA in saliva comes from white blood cells. Yielding virtually the same amount of DNA per volume and the same DNA quality, saliva can be considered as good and as reliable a source of DNA for a wide variety of genetic applications. One thing to note however is that not all oral samples are equal."

 

[Anti-K]

Heyya SD

fmi,

"It&#8217;s (probably) saliva (DNA in saliva is actually skin cells sloughed off in the mouth) and enzymes in saliva degrade DNA"

http://blog.dnagenotek.com/blogdnag...-Spit-What-s-the-Real-Source-of-DNA-in-Saliva

" Over the past few years, saliva has become recognized as a very important and reliable alternative to blood samples for genetic research, clinical diagnostics, personalized medicine and more. What exactly is it that makes saliva such a good alternative to blood for genetic applications? It all comes down to the source of DNA in saliva.Surprisingly, many people I spoke with assumed the source of DNA in saliva is strictly buccal epithelial cells, however, studies show that up to 74%(1) of the DNA in saliva comes from white blood cells. Yielding virtually the same amount of DNA per volume and the same DNA quality, saliva can be considered as good and as reliable a source of DNA for a wide variety of genetic applications. One thing to note however is that not all oral samples are equal."

Saliva collected from a surface or material or object is somewhat different than saliva collected from an individual. From an individual the mouth is swabbed &#8211; essentially scraped &#8211; or some fluid is taken and swished about and after a bit &#8211; presto! These methods were developed in part to maximize the quantity of cells collected. I suspect that the saliva from a drip or a drool or a lick or whatever would contain a lesser quantity, and perhaps quality, of DNA.

The article quoted originates with DNA Genotek, &#8220;a leading provider of products for biological sample collection, stabilization and preparation.&#8221; http://tinyurl.com/mzhca34

They&#8217;re promoting a product. For good results the product requires 2 ml of saliva, the donor cannot eat, drink, smoke, chew gum or brush teeth before giving sample, they have up to 30 minutes to produce the required 2 ml, etc. they have to incubate the sample, etc.
Not quite like the samples found at crime scenes.
...

AK