Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[Chrishope]

You said: "The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt."

That is correct.

I said: "We know the DNA is not from any Ramsey family member. It's certainly reasonable to believe the killer lowered JonBenet's leggings. Since that is reasonable, by excluding the Ramseys you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That makes it exonerating evidence."

That is also correct.

Please note that both you and I adhere to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as the standard that makes DNA, by itself, exonerating evidence.


HTH

In a trial yes. In an investigation, no. There is no "reasonable doubt" criteria for crossing someone off the suspect list.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I think JBR could have picked up the foreign male DNA using the White's bathroom at the party....Didn't Phil Spector have foreign DNA on his privates....does he get acquitted of Lana's murder because of it? Seems as logical as clearing the Ramseys.

 

[Wudge]

In a trial yes. In an investigation, no. There is no "reasonable doubt" criteria for crossing someone off the suspect list.

Incorrect

That criteria is established when the D.A. tells LE, "this is exonerating evidence".


HTH

 

[Jayce]

Re: locations. My example shows that my skin cell dna could end up in the exact locations - waistband and undies- where a killer would have touched the child. I would have touched the waistband myself, and transference could have taken the cells to the underwear.

Does the existence of two sources of DNA really rule out transfer? I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically. Is it possible the dna is from a male child who attended the Christmas party?

As an aside, and others have already asked this too, why is there no dna from PR when we know she touched the long johns ?

First, DNA wasn't found on the waistband. Its was found on both sides of the leggings. Second, the two sources of DNA eliminates the possibility that the DNA could have been transferred from the panties to the leggings or vice versa. Why? Because liquid based DNA is going to stay liquid based regardless of where it is transferred. Ditto with the skin cells.

 

[Chrishope]

Incorrect

That criteria is established when the D.A. tells LE, "this is exonerating evidence".


HTH

First thing you've gotten right all night. The DA can run her case any way she wants. But there is no logical reason to exonerate anyone based on the dna evidence.

 

[Wudge]

First thing you've gotten right all night. The DA can run her case any way she wants. But there is no logical reason to exonerate anyone based on the dna evidence.

You did.

You said: ""The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt."

 

[Chrishope]

First, DNA wasn't found on the waistband. Its was found on both sides of the leggings. Second, the two sources of DNA eliminates the possibility that the DNA could have been transferred from the panties to the leggings or vice versa. Why? Because liquid based DNA is going to stay liquid based regardless of where it is transferred. Ditto with the skin cells.

Ok, waistband, or sides of the leggings. I could have touched sides of leggings putting kids boots on. You seem to think it's impossible that dna could have transfered to the areas "we know the killer touched", but I see no reason to believe that.

Can't liquid and skin cell dna come from the same source? Couldn't a sneeze produce both liquid and skin cell dna?

 

[Chrishope]

You did.

You said: ""The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt."

In a trial, not in an investigation. There is no "reasonable doubt" standard for eliminating suspects. You are right that if the DA doesn't want to persue the Ramseys she doesn't have to, but logically, the dna does not eliminate anyone as a suspect.

 

[Chrishope]

I'm heading over to listen to Brent Turvey now Talk to you guys and gals later.

 

[Wudge]

In a trial, not in an investigation. There is no "reasonable doubt" standard for eliminating suspects. You are right that if the DA doesn't want to persue the Ramseys she doesn't have to, but logically, the dna does not eliminate anyone as a suspect.

Once again: Incorrect

That criteria is established when the D.A. tells LE, "this is exonerating evidence".

(you already agreed this is true)

 

[BBB167893]

It's exonerating evidence, because there is no evidence that supports the matching DNA got on JonBenet's leggings and clothing other than by having come from the person who killed JonBenet.

There's no evidence that it DID come from a killer either.

You are drastically downplaying the DNA evidence. What are the odds that in the three distinct places (on 2 different articles of clothing) that we know the killer had contact with, the same unidentified males' DNA was found? And remember, we are talking about 2 different sources of DNA (one from a liquid, and one from skin cells).

No, Jayce. The DNA was not liquid. Tom bennett said they couldn't tell what it was.

First, you keep ignoring that the DNA evidence was found in the same locations that we know the killer must have had contact with. This is extremely compelling evidence.

No, it came from places the DA THINKS the killer had contact with because she assumes their was an intruder, in the face of her own case file.

They are they ones that cant prove the case because if they could this would have gone to trial against the Ramseys long ago.

Blueeyes, the DA's reasons for not going after the Ramseys have little, if anything to do with evidence, as several books on this case point out. I know; I've read them all.

 

[Jayce]

Ok, waistband, or sides of the leggings. I could have touched sides of leggings putting kids boots on. You seem to think it's impossible that dna could have transfered to the areas "we know the killer touched", but I see no reason to believe that.

I don't think that it is impossible. It would just be an incredible coincedence to have two sources of DNA, on two different articles of clothing, in three different locations, all in areas which a killer must have been in contact with, and it not be the killer.

Can't liquid and skin cell dna come from the same source? Couldn't a sneeze produce both liquid and skin cell dna?

You are using a strange definition of "source". The "liquid DNA" and "skin cell DNA" don't come from a source. The liquid and the skin cells are the source. I suppose what you are asking is could both sources be accounted for by the same event (a sneeze or touch etc.)? It's seems plausible that a sneeze could produce a mixture of liquid and skin cells. However, it would be just that, a mixture. This was not what was found on JonBenet. They found two, separate sources of DNA.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Re: locations. My example shows that my skin cell dna could end up in the exact locations - waistband and undies- where a killer would have touched the child. I would have touched the waistband myself, and transference could have taken the cells to the underwear.

Does the existence of two sources of DNA really rule out transfer? I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically. Is it possible the dna is from a male child who attended the Christmas party?

As an aside, and others have already asked this too, why is there no dna from PR when we know she touched the long johns ?

As for the possibility that the DNA was picked up by JonBenet herself and transferred to her own clothing, the amount of DNA found makes that highly unlikely.

It is extremely unlikely that DNA from two different sources from the same person (say saliva and skin) would both transfer.

As for whether Patsy Ramsey's DNA was on the longjohns, I haven't seen any news accounts yet that say one way or the other. My assumption is that since they already know that Patsy Ramsey touched the longjohns in a perfectly innocent way (preparing JonBenet for bed) and they have her DNA on file, they probably wouldn't bother reporting if they found her DNA on the garments.

 

[BBB167893]

As for the possibility that the DNA was picked up by JonBenet herself and transferred to her own clothing, the amount of DNA found makes that highly unlikely.

Actually, it isn't. A criminologist told Bill O'Reilly that as these tests get more sensitive, the more likely they are to be misleading. I know that seems counterintuitive.

 

[Jayce]

No, Jayce. The DNA was not liquid. Tom bennett said they couldn't tell what it was.

Inconsistent much? If they couldn't tell what source the DNA was from, how do you it wasn't liquid?

Most of the investigators thought that the source of the DNA was saliva. But they couldn't be absolutely sure.

No, it came from places the DA THINKS the killer had contact with because she assumes their was an intruder, in the face of her own case file.

Wrong. Whether or not the killer was an intruder, it is for sure that they were in contact with the leggings and undergarments.

 

[cynic]

I think JBR could have picked up the foreign male DNA using the White's bathroom at the party....Didn't Phil Spector have foreign DNA on his privates....does he get acquitted of Lana's murder because of it? Seems as logical as clearing the Ramseys.

Yes, the JBR case in my opinion is not a DNA case. The DNA is being used by the Ramsey camp to "muddy the waters". JBR could have just as likely deposited the DNA as any so called intruder.
There is a very strong circumstantial case pointing to the Ramsey's guilt
To declare them cleared is the height of irresponsibility.

 

[BBB167893]

Inconsistent much? If they couldn't tell what source the DNA was from, how do you it wasn't liquid?

I can only tell you what the DA's own investigator said, Jayce.

Wrong. Whether or not the killer was an intruder, it is for sure that they were in contact with the leggings and undergarments.

No, DNA was in contact. Have you ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Yes, the JBR case in my opinion is not a DNA case. The DNA is being used by the Ramsey camp to "muddy the waters". JBR could have just as likely deposited the DNA as any so called intruder.
There is a very strong circumstantial case pointing to the Ramsey's guilt
To declare them cleared is the height of irresponsibility.

Absolutely!

 

[Wudge]

There's no evidence that it DID come from a killer either.

Male DNA that was found mixed with JonBenet's blood on her panties accompanied by the finding of that same DNA in two places on her leggings exonerates all Ramsey family members, for there is no logical basis for this thrice-matched DNA combination having come from anyone other than the killer.

HTH

 

[BBB167893]

Male DNA that was found mixed with JonBenet's blood on her panties accompanied by the finding of that same DNA in two places on her leggings exonerates all Ramsey family members, for there is no logical basis for this thrice-matched DNA combination having come from anyone other than the killer.

I can think of one.

 

[cynic]

Male DNA that was found mixed with JonBenet's blood on her panties accompanied by the finding of that same DNA in two places on her leggings exonerates all Ramsey family members, for there is no logical basis for this thrice-matched DNA combination having come from anyone other than the killer.

HTH

This still does not exclude JBR from depositing DNA that she could have picked from the party or wherever earlier in the evening.