this DNA BS stands behind ML's exoneration or however you wanna call it...are her tests even admissible in a courtroom?cause if not how can you exonerate someone based on these findings?
Let me elaborate:Well, I do see your point about the DNA, M2M, but it does not necessarily indicate that the person the DNA belongs to is the murderer.
^BBM^It only indicates the person was at the crime scene, perhaps assisting with the cover up. IMO the Ramsey parents proved beyond all doubt that they knew what happened and never believed in the fake kidnapping story, so I am looking for an explanation for it that has the Ramsey parents knowing what happened, not IDI. Is there a way we can come together and find an explanation that meets this criteria?
Let me elaborate:
The lack of Ramsey DNA in the panties, on the long john's, from the garrote & the wrist ligatures, under her fingernails, etc.
***&***
The presence of this unidentified male's DNA in at least 3 incriminating locations, (panties, Rt. side LJs, Lft. side LJs) suggests the individual to whom the DNA belongs is quite likely responsible for the sexual assault, at minimum.
^BBM^
A former poster, Bluecrab, offered a few interesting theories. I can post links or send them in PM. (Your choice!) I don't want to change the focus of the OP...
Let me elaborate:
The lack of Ramsey DNA in the panties, on the long john's, from the garrote & the wrist ligatures, under her fingernails, etc.
***
that's a problem though,PR admitted putting the lj's on and JR admitted he untied the wrist ligature...their DNA should be all over the place!
Not so. Force used, perspiration, pressure applied, one's hygiene, and other factors contribute to the shedding of skin cells. The DNA collected from the long john's is referred to as TDNA, but it's just regular ole' DNA. Did it come from epithelial cells? Probably.that's a problem though,PR admitted putting the lj's on and JR admitted he untied the wrist ligature...their DNA should be all over the place!
The article itself mentions a manufacturer!? So I guess that wasn't such a far stretch, huh? Interesting.
Contamination was not at all minimized nor accounted for. There were people tromping all over the house and when the body was found, PR threw herself on top of JBR.
They wanted to be sure that the sample from Karr was a good sample.
re point 20.
so without a direct swab it would have been difficult to get a match because the panty DNA was a mixture....then how on earth did they get a match with the TOUCH DNA on the longjohns?
It is not correct to describe any sample was weak. Weak is a reference to how distinct (or not) individual peaks show on the electropherogram, not to the number of peaks (markers) identified.so let me know if I got it right.....
the unknown DNA found co-mingled with JB's blood in her panties is very weak.
because it's so weak,in order to have a match,you need a sample directly from the suspect's mouth and that's why they dragged Karr from Thailand to the US
please explain to me how they got a MATCH then with only a few skin cells from the longjohns :waitasec:
No, the dna can't be used in court, as there is no statistical weight to it. Cynic explains it so well in this thread: A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions! - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community.
Good point. How do you explain this, M2M?