Is the DNA relevant to the crime?

[madeleine]

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?

 

[Venom]

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?

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: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199130"]A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions! - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame].

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

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.

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?

^BBM^
A former poster, Bluecrab, offered a few interesting theories. I can post links or send them in a PM. (Your choice!) I don't want to change the focus of the OP...

 

[Anyhoo]

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...

Yes, send a PM M2M.

But I note that this line of thinking gets me back to an older theory I had about the case, which was that the parents allowed someone else access to their daughter and then covered up for that person.

 

[madeleine]

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!

 

[Mama2JML]

The "panties" DNA profile is in CODIS. It's not weak, RMP can be calculated, and this evidentiary DNA could most definitely be used to obtain a conviction.

 

[madeleine]

JR's touch DNA has to be on the lj's as well




A. How he carried her was part of it.

Page 120




1 Q. And describe that.

2 A. Her head above his head, so he didn't see

3 her head, her face.

4 Q. Can you demonstrate how he was holding her?

5 A. (indicating)

6 Q. So you kind of have your hands together out

7 in front of you, and he kind of had her in a bear hug,

8 is that it, for a lack of any better description? If

9 you were going to go up and hug somebody, that's the

10 way he had his arms around her?

11 A. No.

12 Q. How would you describe - I'm trying to

13 describe for the record.

14 A. Arms - he had his arms around her upper

15 legs. He carried her kind of up and away from his

16 body.


http://www.acandyrose.com/03182000-arndtdepo-04102000.htm

 

[Anyhoo]

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!

Good point. How do you explain this, M2M?

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

 

[CherCher]

The article itself mentions a manufacturer!? So I guess that wasn't such a far stretch, huh? Interesting.

Yes Tawny the article does mention the manufacturer as a possible source for tDNA.

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Contamination is the inadvertent introduction of “innocent” DNA to a crime scene sample that occurs during the collection, preserving and/or processing, etc. of the sample. In this case, the fact that samples were compared to persons connected to the investigation, the family and possible sources at the autopsy with no matches found pretty much eliminates that possibility.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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?

They wanted to be sure that the sample from Karr was a good sample.

IIRC - Karr disinterests me, and this is not my strong suit - the original Karr samples were taken without his knowledge, from an object or objects he had handled. The only way to be sure that the sample they were using was Karr’s (and only Karr’s) was to take it directly from him.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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:

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.

They needed a sample directly from Karr to ensure that it was Karr’s (and only Karr’s).

.

They got a match because all of the identified markers in each sample matched. No identified marker did not match any identified marker.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Yes, it may be true as a general statement that mixed samples with dropout have no evidentiary value because no statistical weight can be given, but this does not speak to the specifics of the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case. This specific DNA sample was accepted by CODIS, and CODIS does not accept inconclusive samples. If ten markers were identified, as they must have been, then a statistical weight can be given to that sample.

The fact that this sample is in CODIS, and is routinely run through the database, disproves Krane’s claim regarding the panty DNA in THIS case.

Also, it should be noted that the sample Krane refers to is the sample from the panties. The two samples from the leggings were not, as far as we know, mixed samples. Krane’s remarks concerning the panty sample does not affect the legitimacy of the legging samples.
...

Edited to add
I hope everyone understands that Krane’s comments regarding mixed samples and dropout were in reference to the panty DNA and NOT to the tDNA!!!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Good point. How do you explain this, M2M?

Because DNA does not transfer as readily or frequently as many posters seem to believe.
...

AK