Lies point us to the truth #2

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Who says? Patsy of course. The longjohns were Burke's and he could have redressed JonBenet in them, washed: who knows?

How do you know his DNA was not on them? If he redressed JonBenet in a pair straight from his drawer, his DNA will be there.

DNA can survive a machine wash. Did you not read about the recent recovery of ancient dna simply by sieving the strata relevant to millions of years ago, they found Mammoth, Horse, Insect DNA, etc.

They tested the longjohns and didn't find his DNA there.

Quite likely a BPD interview as the information is so specific.

"Quite likely". Yet it's not in any of the transcripts: 1997, 1998, 2000. Where did you find the information?

The fruit cocktail is a non-starter, as only pineapple rind was found in JonBenet's stomach.

No report says there was only pineapple in her duodenum, and we have several reports in the DA office's index claiming otherwise. The chyme had "yellow to light green-tan" material in it, and with the pineapple being yellow, what would the green be? Grape skins - as specified in the DA office's index.

Who says, certainly not any CSI.

The latter part of the prior sentence is the important aspect, i.e. POSSIBLY MORE THAN ONE.

This is usually what everyone misses or glosses over.

Yes, and for good reason. The alleles found in the blood spots didn't exceed two potential profiles in any of the loci. If there were three or more profiles present we would see additional alleles in at least some of the loci, yet we do not. That the profiles separated perfectly over each loci - person 1 in this loci, person 2 in that loci, etc. is possible, but also kind of ridiculous. Let me illustrate:

Let's say you have a set of footprints going from point A to point B. Left and right shoes, same brand and size, perfect walking pattern. The equivalent would be to say that it is possible that two people made that pattern. One wore a left shoe and hopped from A to B. Then another wore a right shoe and jumped from A to B, making sure to hop between the left prints, making a perfect set.

Even if that actually happened, the findings on the longjohns would not have yielded the same UM1 profile.

So with multiple fragments of foreign DNA it was patched together to represent a valid entry for CODIS.

That's not how CODIS works. If they weren't convinced the alleles in the 10 loci represented a single profile, or even if they got later info that cast doubt on the validity of the UM1 profile, it would be removed from CODIS.

They never had full foreign profile of any DNA sample other than JonBenet's.

Also any of the foreign DNA might be simple environmental transfer when JonBenet visited the toilet at the White's or simply touched an item by hand that had those profiles on the surface, then deposited them onto her underwear as she used the toilet?

Yet UM1 was located in her blood. Other parts of her panties were tested and only yielded her own DNA. That would not happen in that scenario. There's also the matter of UM1 being discovered before far more sensitive tests existed, tests that could find such secondary or tertiary transfers. The only reason there is so little UM1 DNA left by now is that the earlier, less efficient tests consumed a lot of it.

If I ever write a book on JonBenet I'll offer more explanatory detail, i.e. technical constraints as to why the CODIS entry is fake.

Accordingly There is ZERO forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey household.

Eppur si muove.

 

[UKGuy]

They tested the longjohns and didn't find his DNA there.



"Quite likely". Yet it's not in any of the transcripts: 1997, 1998, 2000. Where did you find the information?



No report says there was only pineapple in her duodenum, and we have several reports in the DA office's index claiming otherwise. The chyme had "yellow to light green-tan" material in it, and with the pineapple being yellow, what would the green be? Grape skins - as specified in the DA office's index.



Yes, and for good reason. The alleles found in the blood spots didn't exceed two potential profiles in any of the loci. If there were three or more profiles present we would see additional alleles in at least some of the loci, yet we do not. That the profiles separated perfectly over each loci - person 1 in this loci, person 2 in that loci, etc. is possible, but also kind of ridiculous. Let me illustrate:

Let's say you have a set of footprints going from point A to point B. Left and right shoes, same brand and size, perfect walking pattern. The equivalent would be to say that it is possible that two people made that pattern. One wore a left shoe and hopped from A to B. Then another wore a right shoe and jumped from A to B, making sure to hop between the left prints, making a perfect set.

Even if that actually happened, the findings on the longjohns would not have yielded the same UM1 profile.



That's not how CODIS works. If they weren't convinced the alleles in the 10 loci represented a single profile, or even if they got later info that cast doubt on the validity of the UM1 profile, it would be removed from CODIS.



Yet UM1 was located in her blood. Other parts of her panties were tested and only yielded her own DNA. That would not happen in that scenario. There's also the matter of UM1 being discovered before far more sensitive tests existed, tests that could find such secondary or tertiary transfers. The only reason there is so little UM1 DNA left by now is that the earlier, less efficient tests consumed a lot of it.



Eppur si muove.

FergusMcDuck,

They tested the longjohns and didn't find his DNA there.

Really, you have a source, citation etc, for this?

They might have tested the longjohns but the complete report has never been made public.

Just those parts that support an IDI scenario.

In a court of law all that matters is what is in the autopsy report.

External opinion is just that, even if it is tagged as Expert.

The DNA Lab knew what it was doing when it prepared its report, i.e. using up the available dna deposits.

That's not how CODIS works. If they weren't convinced the alleles in the 10 loci represented a single profile, or even if they got later info that cast doubt on the validity of the UM1 profile, it would be removed from CODIS.

Its all about a signed off Lab Report, its that simple.

If the analyst thinks the extrapolated dna profile matches that from the crime-scene, then all it needs is paperwork and a signature from a Lab that has a track record in providing DNA Reports.

There was not 10 loci points in any of the original samples.

These were tweaked to meet the CODIS standard along with a signed report.

Nobody will ever be convicted on the basis of the CODIS entry.

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Really, you have a source, citation etc, for this?

They might have tested the longjohns but the complete report has never been made public.

They took four samples from the longjohns. The results are here. As you can plainly see, the only profiles of note are JonBenet and possibly UM1. No other.

Just those parts that support an IDI scenario.

What more could they possibly have revealed? They took four samples from the longjohns, they revealed the results.

In a court of law all that matters is what is in the autopsy report.

Personally, I'm interested in finding out what actually happened. That includes reports by experts.

The DNA Lab knew what it was doing when it prepared its report, i.e. using up the available dna deposits.

Is this some strange conspiracy theory I didn't know about?

Its all about a signed off Lab Report, its that simple.

If the analyst thinks the extrapolated dna profile matches that from the crime-scene, then all it needs is paperwork and a signature from a Lab that has a track record in providing DNA Reports.

And if there were any issues with the profile, it would be removed from CODIS just as easily. But there aren't.

There was not 10 loci points in any of the original samples.

These were tweaked to meet the CODIS standard along with a signed report.

If by "tweaked" you mean "testing with new, improved methods", sure.

Nobody will ever be convicted on the basis of the CODIS entry.

Alone? No. But it can absolutely be helpful in finding the killer.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Nobody will ever be convicted on the basis of the CODIS entry.

UK Guy,

No truer words have been spoken.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

26 years and still no justice for JB! Well the perpetrator knows what transpired. They either live with guilt or are a narcissist/psychopath.

IMOO, there is no logical reason why BR knew that JB had been struck (with a heavy object to her head) 2 weeks after the murder. Surely this was not a topic of discussion for his ears to hear. Why were JB and BR playing Dr. often enough to get caught? Was this a learned behavior?

The RN was written by PR. There is no other way around it. She was flabbergasted whenever she was called on (to recall) the story line. NP got JB started in the pageants; while PR was dealing w/cancer. Why did NP make off colored remarks about BR and also state that all children are a little abused. Why did PP teach BR how to yell at people to go away if they came to his room uninvited. How are these things appropriate for an Aunt or a grandmother? Do we honestly believe that the (Prime of Miss Jean Brodie) snack of pineapple and cream is chalked up to coincidence? This simple fact seems to be behind the story line.

JR was cool, cordial, and attacked in the RN. It’s possible he was having another one of his affairs. It’s also possible he had an inappropriate relationship with JB. Something isn’t right on his side of the fence. Why did he hire attorneys for his out of state children and need to fly out of state to where they were (supposed to be) the Christmas of 1996? How did he know where to look for JB body at the last moment?

IMO they all are guilty of the crime and therefore we should hang them high!

Perhaps we will be able to put JB to rest after so many years very soon. Perhaps, not. And that would not be because of lack of evidence. It’s there. Just not punishable.

 

[UKGuy]

UK Guy,

No truer words have been spoken.

Rain on my Parade,
For sure the CODIS entry is a concocted entry which any defense attorney would argue for the defense that it was in essence a CHIMERA.

DNA Profiles come with Error Margins built in, so as long as any dna extrapolations look within the error bounds allowed for the sampling method then it can pass.

AFAIK the dna results are not repeatable, so if the CODIS entry was allowed on the authority of the DNA Lab Report, then no analysis can be undertaken to demonstrate what it claims is valid.

What we do know is that there were not enough loci to make up the numbers for the CODIS entry, that the dna samples were MIXED, so evidently the final dna report was tweaked to fit the CODIS standard.

Easy to do, just ask for the dna test to be conducted with this outcome in mind and wave your pocketbook about!

.

 

[UKGuy]

Anyone wonder why the Ramsey's put JonBenet's Time Of Death on her gravestone as the 25th December?

From the parents own interviews they could never have known when JonBenet was killed.

John and Patsy both say they last saw JonBenét when they got home and put her to bed about 10pm on December 25.

Jonbenet Ramsey pbsworks site:

“Physical evidence suggests JBR died between 10 PM and 6 AM; based on the degree of rigor mortis observed, it was likely closer to midnight than to 6:00 AM.”

Is it possible Patsy was feeling remorse, as she knew the ligature/device finished off JonBenet, i.e. on the 26th not the 25th?

Was it another aspect to the Ramsey postmortem staging that even JonBenet's gravestone was intended to give a false representation of the previous nights events?

.

 

[Eddie99]

I would suppose that the date was chosen with respect to the last day of her life.

I would further suppose that they never considered for one moment, that internet users would parse every word, and assign motives to everything that have ever said or done.

 

[UKGuy]

I would suppose that the date was chosen with respect to the last day of her life.

I would further suppose that they never considered for one moment, that internet users would parse every word, and assign motives to everything that have ever said or done.

Eddie99,
If one of the Ramsey's killed JonBenet and the others helped to cover it all up. Not much respect there?

Consider BR's antics at JonBenet's funeral, not much respect there.

The parents must have known JonBenet was killed some time after midnight.

Possibly not on Christmas Night, assuming the case is BDI, they just distanced BR from JonBenet, "Hey, go to your bed and fake being asleep, OK", and restaged the crime-scene to the basement, as JonBenet was likely in her own bedroom when she was assaulted.

.

 

[UKGuy]

UK Guy,

No truer words have been spoken.

Rain on my Parade,

Shapiro writes in his article for the JonBenet: Historical revisionism haunts America’s most infamous child murder case, posted by Tricia earlier.

“60 Minutes” also does the public a disservice by promoting the interview inaccurately. Despite the segment’s alternate title being “The breakthrough new DNA evidence that could find JonBenet Ramsey’s killer,” there is no “new” evidence. The real story is that Mr. Ramsey wants Colorado authorities to turn over a minuscule sample of foreign DNA collected from the victim’s body so he can send it to a private company using new “genealogy DNA” testing.

While the show depicts this request as reasonable, it omits the fact that such testing could potentially destroy what’s left of the sample and the fact it has already been cross-referenced with more than 18 million other samples in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).

As former Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey, who served on the case, recently said: “Each DNA technology … has its limitations, and one of the limitations is, if it’s a mixed sample … you can’t do it — and that sample is about 50-50 … [but] the people up there are committed to working the case, they’re committed to keeping enough DNA that when the technique does come, it will help them, that they’ll be able to have it there and utilize it.”

Finally, and perhaps most concerning, several journalists often highlight an anomaly chapter of the 25-year investigation from 2008 when, in the wake of Mrs. Ramsey’s death, DA Mary Lacy emotionally cleared the Ramseys while failing to report that her successor, Stan Garnett, said her “exoneration letter was ill-advised and was of no legal consequence.” In 2016, the Boulder Daily Camera reported that the foreign DNA was most likely a COMPOSITE OF TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT PEOPLE, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, A FACT THAT POINTS TO AN “INNOCENT TRANSFER” AND NOT AN INTRUDER.

Upper Cased by me.



So lets all agree the CODIS DNA was a foreign composite deposit.

.

 

[Lonicera]

My friends, I have long thought that this was a family affair, id is an intra-family death . I changed my mind in hindsight: Patty or John could never have done the act of withers. I think we should look around them.
Very few parents would be able to gargle their six-year-old daughter unless they were mentally ill. We have to think about that.

Always focusing on the mother is participating in the witch hunt. This is soon 2023.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Rain on my Parade,

Shapiro writes in his article for the JonBenet: Historical revisionism haunts America’s most infamous child murder case, posted by Tricia earlier.

So lets all agree the CODIS DNA was a foreign composite deposit.

Huh. So Shapiro writes this:

In 2016, the Boulder Daily Camera reported that the foreign DNA was most likely a COMPOSITE OF TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT PEOPLE, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, A FACT THAT POINTS TO AN “INNOCENT TRANSFER” AND NOT AN INTRUDER.

Yet the actual Daily Camera article says this:

• The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence.
[...]
"You know," Danielson said, "looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this 'unknown male' — this could easily be a composite profile.

So we go from "it could be" to "it most likely is". That's rather creative of Shapiro.

Fortunately there are other opinions, from experts actually involved in the case, like Bode labs analyst Amy Jeanguenat:

Following the PowerPoint presentation, I presented Williamson and Jeanguenat with a chart summarizing: the mixture profile data developed by Gregg LaBerge at the Denver Police Department crime lab, the victim's known profile, and the interpreted suspect's contribution to the mixture (per the uploaded CODIS forensic unknown profile). [...] When asked, Jeanguenat stated that she saw no indication that a third party contributed to the mixture and would "testify in court" to that effect.

Take the two together, and it seems to me that they say "possible, but there's no indication that it is a composite". Which is my opinion as well.

Rain on my Parade,
For sure the CODIS entry is a concocted entry which any defense attorney would argue for the defense that it was in essence a CHIMERA.

DNA Profiles come with Error Margins built in, so as long as any dna extrapolations look within the error bounds allowed for the sampling method then it can pass.

AFAIK the dna results are not repeatable, so if the CODIS entry was allowed on the authority of the DNA Lab Report, then no analysis can be undertaken to demonstrate what it claims is valid.

What we do know is that there were not enough loci to make up the numbers for the CODIS entry, that the dna samples were MIXED, so evidently the final dna report was tweaked to fit the CODIS standard.

I don't think you understand how the profile was obtained.

In 1997, CBI did their initial testing of the panties and fingernail scrapings, using the DQA1/Polymarker and D1S80 tests. The Polymarker test looks at five loci, so in total that would be seven loci. They only got six foreign alleles on the fingernails (four from one hand, two from the other), and one allele alone from the underwear. This was the testing available at the time, and was crude and inefficient by today's standards. A lot of the blood in the underwear was consumed by the test. These alleles indicated a non-Ramsey contributor, but a profile could not be made from so few alleles.

Then in 2003, Gregg LaBerge of the Denver Crime Lab began STR (short tandem repeat) analysis on the remaining blood samples. This test targeted 13 loci, the ones used for entry into CODIS. LaBerge conducted testing until he had found foreign alleles at 10 loci, and submitted it to CODIS in late 2003. A few months later, CODIS accepted it.

Basically, there was no tweaking. There was testing, with newer and more effective methods, until the profile was clear enough that could be entered into CODIS. It was not concocted, it was discovered. It is not a chimera(???), it is a valid profile used by CODIS.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Happy to consider most things, but they have to make sense. Of all the scenarios that involve the Ramseys, Burke hurting JonBenet and the parents finishing her off to cover for him, makes the least sense to me. One child hit another on the head, so let's garrote and sexually assault our still living child!

I see little evidence of staging and the note honestly points to an intruder. The oddities I am most interested in are:

* Foreign DNA in a blood spot in JonBenet's panties, enough for a CODIS entry (UM1).
* Touch DNA consistent with the above found on the waistband of her longjohns.
* Tape and cord unsourced to the house.
* Unsourced rope found in the room next to JonBenet's, with a view of the garage.
* Baseball bat found outside the butler's door, on the northern edge of the house where the children didn't go.
* Marks consistent with a stun gun (unsourced), including one prong over tape.
* Fibers and hair on JonBenet, unsourced (including beaver fur and brown cotton fibers).
* Two sightings of unknown young man around the Ramsey house that night.
* Rambling ransom note, consistent with other cases involving young men.

Unless one of the BPD dipped their hands into JonBenet's panties before handing her over to the coroner, I don't see how their incompetence could create a DNA profile in the blood as well as on the waistband. They tested areas of the panties around the blood spots and found no trace of UM1. He was only in the blood and on the waistband, as what he he did was pull down her underwear and assault her.

Do you have sources, please, for all or some of your points? Thank you.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Do you have sources, please, for all or some of your points? Thank you.

Certainly!

The Bode report has the source for the DNA. That they couldn't find the source of the tape or the cord is in Schiller's book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (mainly ch 6 & 9). The rope is sourced to the interviews with Ramsey, and is collected here. Info on the baseball bat is here, and is ultimately sourced to the Ramsey interviews and the book by Steve Thomas. Stun gun is a hypothesis of Smit's, bolstered by the opinions of drs Meyer and Doberson, told in chapter 16 & 21 of Schiller's book. The specific fibers and fur are sourced to the Beckner deposition, as well as Thomas, collected here. The neighbor witnesses are quotes from police reports found in chapter 20 of We Have Your Daughter by Paula Woodward:

That same evening, a Ramsey neighbor saw a person outside the Ramsey house. The person was described in a police report as a “tall thin blond male wearing glasses [and] thought to be John Andrew.” (BPD Reports #1-690, #5-690.) It was later established by the Boulder Police Department that John Andrew Ramsey had been in Atlanta for Christmas with his sister and mother at the time. Another police report states that “an unknown neighbor supposedly saw a person outside the door of the Ramsey house (during the night).” (BPD Report #1-771)

Here is the note from the Leopold and Loeb case. Two young men who always intended to kill their victim. Also the Mackle kidnapping note, twice as long as the Ramsey note, transcribed here. Also a young man.

 

[UKGuy]

Huh. So Shapiro writes this:



Yet the actual Daily Camera article says this:



So we go from "it could be" to "it most likely is". That's rather creative of Shapiro.

Fortunately there are other opinions, from experts actually involved in the case, like Bode labs analyst Amy Jeanguenat:



Take the two together, and it seems to me that they say "possible, but there's no indication that it is a composite". Which is my opinion as well.



I don't think you understand how the profile was obtained.

In 1997, CBI did their initial testing of the panties and fingernail scrapings, using the DQA1/Polymarker and D1S80 tests. The Polymarker test looks at five loci, so in total that would be seven loci. They only got six foreign alleles on the fingernails (four from one hand, two from the other), and one allele alone from the underwear. This was the testing available at the time, and was crude and inefficient by today's standards. A lot of the blood in the underwear was consumed by the test. These alleles indicated a non-Ramsey contributor, but a profile could not be made from so few alleles.

Then in 2003, Gregg LaBerge of the Denver Crime Lab began STR (short tandem repeat) analysis on the remaining blood samples. This test targeted 13 loci, the ones used for entry into CODIS. LaBerge conducted testing until he had found foreign alleles at 10 loci, and submitted it to CODIS in late 2003. A few months later, CODIS accepted it.

Basically, there was no tweaking. There was testing, with newer and more effective methods, until the profile was clear enough that could be entered into CODIS. It was not concocted, it was discovered. It is not a chimera(???), it is a valid profile used by CODIS.

FergusMcDuck,

I don't think you understand how the profile was obtained.

Oh my an ad hominem attribution as an opener, maybe I should keep my understanding for my book?

LaBerge conducted testing UNTIL he had found FOREIGN alleles at 10 loci, and submitted it to CODIS in late 2003. A few months later, CODIS accepted it.

Oh, how convenient, so LaBerge searched until he found what he was requested to discover.

Private Lab gets paid big bucks to tweak the profile parameters so they match the CODIS standard, not really a big deal.

How do we know the blood samples were not MIXED?

i.e.

As former Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey, who served on the case, recently said: “Each DNA technology … has its limitations, and one of the limitations is, if it’s a mixed sample … you can’t do it — and that sample is about 50-50

Take note: this is Ex Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey describing the sample sent to the lab as 50-50, that sounds like MIXED to me, or for greek followers a CHIMERA!
.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Oh my an ad hominem attribution as an opener, maybe I should keep my understanding for my book?

That was not an ad hominem. Based on what you write, it doesn't seem to me like you understand the topic. And anyway, I don't think of this as a debate.

Oh, how convenient, so LaBerge searched until he found what he was requested to discover.

LaBerge's job was to find all the alleles in each loci. And that's what he did. He had better tests available than CBI had five years earlier, so he got better results.

Private Lab gets paid big bucks to tweak the profile parameters so they match the CODIS standard, not really a big deal.

Using the word tweaking betrays a complete misunderstanding of the process. If UM1's alleles weren't in the sample, they wouldn't be found. No amount of "tweaking" could change that.

How do we know the blood samples were not MIXED?

i.e.

Take note: this is Ex Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey describing the sample sent to the lab as 50-50, that sounds like MIXED to me, or for greek followers a CHIMERA!

Chimera is already a concept in genetics, which has nothing to do with this topic. And you've misunderstood Morrissey's meaning. The sample was mixed 50-50, yes. Half was JonBenet's, half was UM1's. That has always been known, as UM1 was discovered by removing JonBenet's alleles from each loci and seeing what was left. If there had been multiple non-JonBenet contributors, we'd see more than four alleles in any loci - except that we don't do that. See page 3 of the Bode report.

The mixing does present problems for some other forms of testing, but it does not in anyway invalidate the existance of UM1. Certainly the Bode expert was willing to testify to this in court.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Certainly!

The Bode report has the source for the DNA. That they couldn't find the source of the tape or the cord is in Schiller's book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (mainly ch 6 & 9). The rope is sourced to the interviews with Ramsey, and is collected here. Info on the baseball bat is here, and is ultimately sourced to the Ramsey interviews and the book by Steve Thomas. Stun gun is a hypothesis of Smit's, bolstered by the opinions of drs Meyer and Doberson, told in chapter 16 & 21 of Schiller's book. The specific fibers and fur are sourced to the Beckner deposition, as well as Thomas, collected here. The neighbor witnesses are quotes from police reports found in chapter 20 of We Have Your Daughter by Paula Woodward:



Here is the note from the Leopold and Loeb case. Two young men who always intended to kill their victim. Also the Mackle kidnapping note, twice as long as the Ramsey note, transcribed here. Also a young man.

Thank you for the sources.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

That was not an ad hominem. Based on what you write, it doesn't seem to me like you understand the topic. And anyway, I don't think of this as a debate.



LaBerge's job was to find all the alleles in each loci. And that's what he did. He had better tests available than CBI had five years earlier, so he got better results.



Using the word tweaking betrays a complete misunderstanding of the process. If UM1's alleles weren't in the sample, they wouldn't be found. No amount of "tweaking" could change that.



Chimera is already a concept in genetics, which has nothing to do with this topic. And you've misunderstood Morrissey's meaning. The sample was mixed 50-50, yes. Half was JonBenet's, half was UM1's. That has always been known, as UM1 was discovered by removing JonBenet's alleles from each loci and seeing what was left. If there had been multiple non-JonBenet contributors, we'd see more than four alleles in any loci - except that we don't do that. See page 3 of the Bode report.

The mixing does present problems for some other forms of testing, but it does not in anyway invalidate the existance of UM1. Certainly the Bode expert was willing to testify to this in court.

How does genetics not having anything to do with DNA? Maybe I'm completely missing something??

 

[FergusMcDuck]

How does genetics not having anything to do with DNA? Maybe I'm completely missing something??

Ah, I see how that sentence was confusingly worded. Sorry! I meant the topic of a mixed sample of DNA from two or more different contributors, which has been the topic of discussion, whereas in genetics a chimera is an individual (or lifeform) with multiple sets of DNA. It's an extremely rare phenomenon.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Ah, I see how that sentence was confusingly worded. Sorry! I meant the topic of a mixed sample of DNA from two or more different contributors, which has been the topic of discussion, whereas in genetics a chimera is an individual (or lifeform) with multiple sets of DNA. It's an extremely rare phenomenon.

I see where you're coming from. Thank you.