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

[robotdog]

So, like with The Intruder, this was a One Time Deal only?

and Wudge better not grow a brain :rolling:

 

[Solace]

I didn't say that it exonerates anyone. I said it "goes a long way to exonerating". Why? Because finding the same unidentifed man's DNA in three different locations on two different articles of clothing, in areas where the killer was sure to have had contact with, is compelling evidence that there was an intruder.

Not to me it doesn't. Firstly, you do not know how the garments were packaged. You do not know if the DNA was relocated to another garment by transfer, which is highly likely, since the fingernail clippers used in the case were trainted themselves.

 

[Solace]

There is nothing certain about it at all. Yesterday, on another thread, I told how my own skin cells could easily end up - innocently- in a kid's underpants. I'll go through it again briefly here.

I work in an elementary school. On a few occasions I've helped kids get dressed for recess, helping them on with their snow pants. In this process I may have to pull up their regular pants to get the snow pants on. That would mean I've touched the waistband of their pants. I've also helped kids wipe spilled milk from their shirt or blouse in the lunch room. In both cases, I have to touch the kids and my skin cells transfer. The kids could then transfer the cells further by touching where I touched and then putting their hands in their underpants. Now, suppose one of these kids is killed in their home. We now have my dna in 3 places on 2 articles of clothing, including underwear. Am I almost certainly the killer?

Do we know what kind of cells we are dealing with in the panties? It's being called "liquid" dna. Does that mean it came from blood, saliva, semen, or does it mean it was transfered in a liquid?

The more important point about the dna is that there was enough to do normal analysis, rather than lcn analysis. But we still don't know how it got there. If it turns out to have an innocent explanation, we are right back where we started. If it turns out to be the dna of someone who was a child at the time, we are back where we started.

Is this enough for a good defense attorney to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors? Sure. Is it enough, as a matter of logic, for detectives (or the DA) to cross someone off the suspect list? No.

I concur and great post by the way.

 

[Solace]

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.

Where did you get that information from or did you deduce it yourself that there is no possibility of tranference. According to one of the forensics, his name I forget, there could very well have been transference.

 

[Solace]

But the standard processes themselves are so much more advanced than they were to start with.



Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."



name names, Jayce.



I've been at this WAY to long to put up with that garbage, Jayce. John Ramsey, early on in this case, said that he had hired private investigators to find the real killer because he didn't trust the police (all the while swearing he cooperated! LOL). But in his deposition, he finally admitted that was a lie and that the investigators were only looking for stuff to produce reasonable doubt at trial, including, and I swear I'm not making this up, targeting witnesses for dirty tricks. These same people have, in the last few days, been on television touting evidence that was disproven a long time ago.



Not in this day of DNA tests that are so supersensitive they can pick up stuff from months before. DNA IS a powerful science, Jayce, but it's not the end-all be-all. Unless it's semen from a rape, it has to have other evidence along with it. No one can prove this DNA is from an intruder because no one can prove as yet there WAS an intruder in that house that night. In fact, even if the DNA isn't relevant at all, that doesn't mean there was no intruder. Did you ever think of that?

Great post SD. Augustin and Gray were on Nancy Grace and once again ill-prepared. I believe it was Augustin who said there is nothing to point to prior abuse, whereupon, Grace said "I believe it is in the autopsy report".

Wendy (forget her last name, but I am sure you all know her) responded by saying there was "chronic inflammation of the mucosa of the vaginal wall" (I think I have that right) which means "over time". The body was trying to heal itself over time.

It is pathetic that these guys actually go on tv and are not familiar with that even when they know that Wendy will be there and she believes there was sexual abuse going on. Incredible.

 

[angelwngs]

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.

Did I miss vital information about the dna tested?

I thought it was a drop of JBR's blood inside her undies which was intermingled with unidentified male dna.

Anyway, Jayce, your post infomation does not eliminate the possibility of unidentified male dna transfer from the object used inside JBR, which caused her to bleed, to that drop of blood. The object could have been handled by any number of unidentified males. Right?

Whoever broke the paintbrush could have contaminated their own gloved hands with this unidentified male dna and then transferred this touch dna onto JBR's longjohns. Correct?

 

[Wudge]

Did I miss vital information about the dna tested?

I thought it was a drop of JBR's blood inside her undies which was intermingled with unidentified male dna.

Anyway, Jayce, your post infomation does not eliminate the possibility of unidentified male dna transfer from the object used inside JBR, which caused her to bleed, to that drop of blood. The object could have been handled by any number of unidentified males. Right?

Whoever broke the paintbrush could have contaminated their own gloved hands with this unidentified male dna and then transferred this touch dna onto JBR's longjohns. Correct?

If the intruder was wearing gloves, it does not follow they would have left the touch DNA that was found on JonBenet's leggings.

HTH

 

[Solace]

SD - I'd bet that this latest scam is the reason why Tom Bennett abruptly quit his job at the DA's office recently.

That is interesting.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Wudge, the killer may have taken off his gloves to sexually moleste JB. It was said the abuse was consistant with digital penetration. However I would think if this so called killer took off his gloves at some point to pull down her long johns, why isn't his DNA found on her panties, unless he took the original ones she was wearing with him as a souvenir and re-dressed her wearing gloves in the oversized panties? Also at one point the broken end of the paint brush was inserted into her vagina. Why then is there no DNA on this object? I imagine it's too late now to get "touch DNA" samples from her body and the coroner did swab her vaginal region and no foreign DNA was found on her body.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Angel wings, if that had happened regarding breaking the paint brush first, they would have found wood shard evidence of the paint brush along with that DNA as well.

 

[LI_Mom]

Angel wings, if that had happened regarding breaking the paint brush first, they would have found wood shard evidence of the paint brush along with that DNA as well.

Didn't they find wood splinters on the floor near the paint tray or something like that???

Honestly, the picking & choosing of what potential evidence they test & what they don't bother to test is astonishing.

IF I were the parents, I'd be screaming bloody murder that they are NOT testing everything they can so they can solve this murder.

 

[angelwngs]

Didn't they find wood splinters on the floor near the paint tray or something like that???

Honestly, the picking & choosing of what potential evidence they test & what they don't bother to test is astonishing.

IF I were the parents, I'd be screaming bloody murder that they are NOT testing everything they can so they can solve this murder.

Yep, according to what I have read they did.

 

[Jayce]

Not to me it doesn't. Firstly, you do not know how the garments were packaged. You do not know if the DNA was relocated to another garment by transfer, which is highly likely, since the fingernail clippers used in the case were trainted themselves.

The amount of DNA found on the leggings and in the panties eliminates the possibility that it was transferred from a factory worker to the panties and then from the panties to the leggings. The traces of DNA that have been found in unopened packages of underwear are minute.

 

[LI_Mom]

Yep, according to what I have read they did.

I wonder if the police even bothered to check the Ramsey's hands to see if either had cuts or evidence of splinters? I seriously doubt they did.... probably just asked the Ramsey's lawyers to & report back with their findings. lol

 

[Jayce]

Where did you get that information from or did you deduce it yourself that there is no possibility of tranference. According to one of the forensics, his name I forget, there could very well have been transference.

My own deduction, which, I admit, could be wrong. If, as it seems, the DNA in the panties was from saliva (or some other liquid) and the DNA on the leggings was from skin cells, how could it be the result of transference?

Whats more, the amount of Touch DNA found on the leggings (which was enough for routine analysis) indicates that it wasn't the result of secondary transfer. Apparently, secondary transfer from Touch DNA results of very, very small amounts of DNA.

 

[Medea]

My own deduction, which, I admit, could be wrong. If, as it seems, the DNA in the panties was from saliva (or some other liquid) and the DNA on the leggings was from skin cells, how could it be the result of transference?

Whats more, the amount of Touch DNA found on the leggings (which was enough for routine analysis) indicates that it wasn't the result of secondary transfer. Apparently, secondary transfer from Touch DNA results of very, very small amounts of DNA.

I don't think it has ever been stated on the record by LE that the DNA from the panties was saliva...though I think it has been said that it was not from semen.

 

[LI_Mom]

I don't think it has ever been stated on the record by LE that the DNA from the panties was saliva...though I think it has been said that it was not from semen.

No semen involved in the JB case.

Unless they find some unexpectedly in the future. lol

 

[Solace]

The amount of DNA found on the leggings and in the panties eliminates the possibility that it was transferred from a factory worker to the panties and then from the panties to the leggings. The traces of DNA that have been found in unopened packages of underwear are minute.

I am talking about packaged off the dead child. They very well could have been thrown intogether. Nothing would surprise me.

But it will take a lot more than this travesty by Lacy to convince me that the Ramseys are not involved. They are in it up to their ears and then some.

 

[Solace]

I wonder if the police even bothered to check the Ramsey's hands to see if either had cuts or evidence of splinters? I seriously doubt they did.... probably just asked the Ramsey's lawyers to & report back with their findings. lol

I doubt it. They didn't mind letting Patsy's sister walk in and claim whatever she wanted.

You know if there were ever a movie and this were the crime and how it was handled, everyone would say "don't bother seeing the movie. It is too unbelieveable, none of this would have happened. The police would never have let it".

The movie would require mega suspension of disbelief. Mega.:bang:

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, the killer may have taken off his gloves to sexually moleste JB. It was said the abuse was consistant with digital penetration. However I would think if this so called killer took off his gloves at some point to pull down her long johns, why isn't his DNA found on her panties, unless he took the original ones she was wearing with him as a souvenir and re-dressed her wearing gloves in the oversized panties? Also at one point the broken end of the paint brush was inserted into her vagina. Why then is there no DNA on this object? I imagine it's too late now to get "touch DNA" samples from her body and the coroner did swab her vaginal region and no foreign DNA was found on her body.

I agree that the killer may have worn gloves but taken them off when he stripped JonBenet's leggings and possibly digitally violated her. For a fruitcake pedophile, that would be one of the ultimate acts of fantasy. If he removing his gloves so as to personally enjoy those actions to the fullest, that would not be a surprise to me.