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

[BBB167893]

I presented three statement that I believe are independently verifiable. 1. DNA has been found in 3 locations (on both sides of her JonBenet's leggings and in her underwear) 2. The killer was in almost assuredly in contact with these three locations. (regardless of who the killer is, even if it is the Ramseys) and 3. It is extremely unlikely (approaching impossible) that the DNA is from secondary transfer. Here is a scholarly article that supports this last statement http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

Which of these statements do you disagree with?

Jayce, you're talking science; I'm talking law.

Let me be more specific: to prove the intruder made contact, other evidence has to show there was an intruder.

And believe me, nothing's impossible. I figured it was impossible that I would bury both parents before I was 30.

 

[LI_Mom]

I presented three statement that I believe are independently verifiable. 1. DNA has been found in 3 locations (on both sides of her JonBenet's leggings and in her underwear) 2. The killer was in almost assuredly in contact with these three locations. (regardless of who the killer is, even if it is the Ramseys) and 3. It is extremely unlikely (approaching impossible) that the DNA is from secondary transfer. Here is a scholarly article that supports this last statement http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

Which of these statements do you disagree with?

I question how the garment was folded & stored away after all these years...

How do we know dna didn't transfer from one area of the longjones to another area?




We heard they scraped from 2 sides.

Does this mean there were independent & clean tests done on EACH side and they in fact found the same touch dna on 2 sides?

Or did they scrape both sides hoping to pick up any hidden cells that they could then prepare for testing?



And my BIGGEST problem..... why didn't/don't they test EVERY man, woman & CHILD that was at the party so they can easily exclude as many false leads as humanly possible?

 

[Jayce]

Jayce, you're talking science; I'm talking law.

Let me be more specific: to prove the intruder made contact, other evidence has to show there was an intruder.

Non-sequitur. Evidence of contact from a third party can be compelling evidence of an intruder.

 

[Jayce]

I question how the garment was folded & stored away after all these years...

How do we know dna didn't transfer from one area of the longjones to another area?

Because the DNA would never had been detected and profiled with routine analysis (which is the analysis that they did). Read this article http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

We heard they scraped from 2 sides.

Does this mean there were independent & clean tests done on EACH side and they in fact found the same touch dna on 2 sides?

Or did they scrape both sides hoping to pick up any hidden cells that they could then prepare for testing?

I guess it is possible that the DNA found was just on one side of the legging, but it seems unlikely. Its not really that relevant of a point though.

And my BIGGEST problem..... why didn't/don't they test EVERY man, woman & CHILD that was at the party so they can easily exclude as many false leads as humanly possible?

Money, time, and getting permission from everyone at the party.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, it could be. But is it? And it's up to the DA to make that call. And most of us have no reason to trust the DA.

 

[Jayce]

Yes, it could be. But is it? And it's up to the DA to make that call. And most of us have no reason to trust the DA.

The thing that matters to me is the evidence. And the evidence seems to indicate to me that there was an intruder. I am not here to defend or attack the DA.

 

[Solace]

Ok. My mistake. I was using "male" and "man" interchangeably when they clearly don't mean the same thing. There is no way that the DNA found was a result of secondary transfer. This is a key point. Read this study about secondary transfer http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf The only way that such secondary transfer of DNA could be detected is through lcn analysis. But they didn't use lcn analysis, they used routine analysis.


What? I have never said anything about the DNA under the fingernails. When I said the DNA has been found in three separate locations, I meant on both sides of her leggings and in her underwear.

Sorry, must be confusing you with another diehard Ramsey fan.

Look Jayce, I know you are all excited about this so called "new" information. But the fact that there is dna that possibly matches, and the key word is possibly, beCAUSE we do not have 13 markers, do we? No, we don't.

And I know you are bent on this not being a transfer, I am not. And you can wave that miniscule printed document all you want. I have heard several forensics come on tv and say they are very skeptical becuase of just this reason - it could be transference. Also, the letter to the Ramseys is premature and reeks of nepotism on the part of Lacy. She is a phucking disgrace.

The only thing I get excited about is how Lacy has the unadulterated audacity to take it upon herself to say the Ramseys are innocent just from this test alone.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A TEST ON THE GARROTTE.

Dont you find it interesting that they have not tested the garrotte when the supposed intruder is the one who put it around the child - or at the very least let us know they are going to test it and other items.

Please.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I know. You are misunderstanding me (I was unclear earlier). They were able to develop a profile from the DNA on the leggings and match it to the profile that was in CODIS.

Haven't they used this male DNA to exclude others in this case?

How can they do that if it is not a DNA profile?

imoo

 

[Solace]

The thing that matters to me is the evidence. And the evidence seems to indicate to me that there was an intruder. I am not here to defend or attack the DA.

I don't see how it indicates that. You've got a ransom note and fibers from the mother and absolutely nothing else from an intruder at all. No matter what line of bs Augustin and Gray want to put forth, it doesn't wash.

You cannot overlook the abundance of evidence pointing directly to the parents in this case - Patsy - because you THINK, THINK, you might have a correlation of DNA with a lack of the required markers.

I don't think so. I really don't.

 

[LI_Mom]

Because the DNA would never had been detected and profiled with routine analysis (which is the analysis that they did). Read this article http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf


I guess it is possible that the DNA found was just on one side of the legging, but it seems unlikely. Its not really that relevant of a point though.

Money, time, and getting permission from everyone at the party.

I'm not questioning the various different types of dna profiling tests... I'm questioning how can a prosecutor EVER prove the samples are uncompromised after all this time & handling.

That PDF is outdated & I have no idea how it even relates to "touch dna."



Of course, it IS relevant whether they found two separate samples on two separate legs.... they're specifically announcing that they tested TWO SIDES but they're not telling us whether they found dna on two sides. Why would scientists deal in such vague terms?



Money, time, permission? Those are feeble excuses in a case of this magnitude.


The message they are sending is that they are NOT willing to investigate this case is a logical & methodical way. We found male dna & over a decade later we still can't be sure it doesn't belong to one of the little boys that JB was playing with. And guess what... we really don't care. Duh.

They might as well come out & admit.... they have NO INTENTIONS of solving the case & never really did.

 

[Jayce]

Sorry, must be confusing you with another diehard Ramsey fan.

I am not a Ramsey fan. It is a non-sequitur to suggest that, because I think that there was an intruder, that I am a "diehard" Ramsey fan.

Look Jayce, I know you are all excited about this so called "new" information. But the fact that there is dna that possibly matches, and the key word is possibly, beCAUSE we do not have 13 markers, do we? No, we don't.

They got about 10 markers with the underwear DNA. That is enough to be virtually certain about a match.

And I know you are bent on this not being a transfer, I am not.

Scientific studies concerning secondary transfer indicate that this DNA was not the result of such a transfer.

And you can wave that miniscule printed document all you want.

The paper that you deride as a "miniscule printed document" is a peer reviewed scientific study conducted by forensic professionals including Dr. Henry Lee.

I have heard several forensics come on tv and say they are very skeptical becuase of just this reason - it could be transference.

Such as who? And are they familiar with the status of the DNA evidence? A peer-reviewed scientific study is infinitely more valuable than the stated opinion of a few forensics on TV.

Also, the letter to the Ramseys is premature and reeks of nepotism on the part of Lacy. She is a phucking disgrace.

The only thing I get excited about is how Lacy has the unadulterated audacity to take it upon herself to say the Ramseys are innocent just from this test alone.

I am not here to defend or attack the DA. Just to explain why the evidence points to an intruder.

Dont you find it interesting that they have not tested the garrotte when the supposed intruder is the one who put it around the child - or at the very least let us know they are going to test it and other items.

I think they should test the garrotte and all other pieces of evidence. But the fact that they haven't in no way invalidates the new evidence they have found.

 

[Jayce]

I'm not questioning the various different types of dna profiling tests... I'm questioning how can a prosecutor EVER prove the samples are uncompromised after all this time & handling.

The samples were in good enough condition (ie weren't degraded) to be able to developa profile.

That PDF is outdated & I have no idea how it even relates to "touch dna."

It is not outdated. Did you actually read it? It utilizes the same type of routine DNA testing (STR) that is done today. So it is very relevant. The scrapings from the leggings were sent to a "touch dna" lab which typically uses LCN testing (which is for very, very small samples of DNA), but they had enough DNA to do a routine test.

Of course, it IS relevant whether they found two separate samples on two separate legs.... they're specifically announcing that they tested TWO SIDES but they're not telling us whether they found dna on two sides. Why would scientists deal in such vague terms?

I don't know why they haven't been more specific. Presumably more details will come out. My point is, regardless of whether then DNA was found on one or both sides of the leggings, it is still compelling evidence.

Money, time, permission? Those are feeble excuses in a case of this magnitude.

As I have said, I am not here to defend the actions of the DA. I merely gave the probable reasons that they would have given. I am not saying that these reasons are good.

 

[Solace]

I am not a Ramsey fan. It is a non-sequitur to suggest that, because I think that there was an intruder, that I am a "diehard" Ramsey fan.

They got about 10 markers with the underwear DNA. That is enough to be virtually certain about a match. If that is enough, then what do we use 13 for? It is not enough. There are people that are saying the DNA under her nails is also a match and that DNA has 3 markers. I don't think so. The fact that there is not a total of 13 markers leads it open to a false positive. It is not foolproof by any stretch of the imagination including Lacy's and Ramseys.

Scientific studies concerning secondary transfer indicate that this DNA was not the result of such a transfer. The paper that you deride as a "miniscule printed document" is a peer reviewed scientific study conducted by forensic professionals including Dr. Henry Lee. Such as who? And are they familiar with the status of the DNA evidence? A peer-reviewed scientific study is infinitely more valuable than the stated opinion of a few forensics on TV. I am not here to defend or attack the DA. Just to explain why the evidence points to an intruder. I am not deriding your paper. I am at work and you pass on a document with print that is so small it is somewhat comical. If you want to cut and paste some of the essential info, I would and know others would appreciate it. Give me a break here. Pretend your on tv and have a certain amount of time - are you going to give the interviewer th epaper and tell her to read it.


I think they should test the garrotte and all other pieces of evidence. But the fact that they haven't in no way invalidates the new evidence they have found.[/quote]
Didn't say it did.

 

[Jayce]

If that is enough, then what do we use 13 for? It is not enough.

I'm not sure why 13 loci is the standard for the US. The British system uses 10 loci. In the US, 9 or 10 loci is enough to be entered into CODIS. But the fact is that 10 is enough to be virtually certain. The odds of two pieces of DNA evidence from the same crime scene to have the same 10 loci, and no differing loci is absolutely astronomical.

There are people that are saying the DNA under her nails is also a match and that DNA has 3 markers. I don't think so. The fact that there is not a total of 13 markers leads it open to a false positive. It is not foolproof by any stretch of the imagination including Lacy's and Ramseys.

3 markers is not enough. I agree. But 10 is.

I am not deriding your paper. I am at work and you pass on a document with print that is so small it is somewhat comical. If you want to cut and paste some of the essential info, I would and know others would appreciate it. Give me a break here. Pretend your on tv and have a certain amount of time - are you going to give the interviewer th epaper and tell her to read it.

The paper is not small on my computer. The text is actually pretty big. I have the PDF version, and it is the version that I thought I linked to.

Here are some the essential finding of the study,

"The STR results regarding primary and secondary DNA transfer
were identical to those for AmpliType PM 1 DQA1. Primary
transfer was observed in some cases using Profiler Plus and
COfiler. As with the dot-based systems, sample degradation in addition
to low DNA yield appeared to be significant factors. Locus
and allele dropout were particularly problematic for the larger amplicons.
With respect to secondary transfer, peaks above background
(15–20 RFU) from the second individual were not detected
for most STR amplifications. On occasion, minor peaks (below 75
RFU) from the second individual were observed. However, in
these instances, allele dropout was routine. The complete secondary
profile was never detected, even if the data were analyzed
in the 50–75 RFU range. It should also be noted that, generally,
amplification would not be attempted on many of the experimental
samples we tested since the manufacturer recommends using a
minimum of 250 pg (35 cells) of DNA template for PCR."

and

"Our data indicate that the primary transfer of DNA by handling
is possible, but detecting an interpretable genotype is not assured.
Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions.
Therefore, our data do not support the inference that the interpretation
of DNA profiles from case samples could be compromised
by secondary transfer."

 

[LI_Mom]

The samples were in good enough condition (ie weren't degraded) to be able to developa profile.

It is not outdated. Did you actually read it? It utilizes the same type of routine DNA testing (STR) that is done today. So it is very relevant. The scrapings from the leggings were sent to a "touch dna" lab which typically uses LCN testing (which is for very, very small samples of DNA), but they had enough DNA to do a routine test.


I don't know why they haven't been more specific. Presumably more details will come out. My point is, regardless of whether then DNA was found on one or both sides of the leggings, it is still compelling evidence.



As I have said, I am not here to defend the actions of the DA. I merely gave the probable reasons that they would have given. I am not saying that these reasons are good.

I confess.... I ony skimmed the DNA pdf... just enough to get the jist. That stuff is WAY over my head.... it's giving me a headache. lol

Jayce, I'm not expecting you (or anyone else here) to defend the DA or the Ramseys.... I respect your opinions & your take on the matter.

I'm simply explaining why I am not so impressed with the DA's new announcement & what it would take to make me more comfortable with the investigation.

 

[Jayce]

I confess.... I ony skimmed the DNA pdf... just enough to get the jist. That stuff is WAY over my head.... it's giving me a headache. lol

Jayce, I'm not expecting you (or anyone else here) to defend the DA or the Ramseys.... I respect your opinions & your take on the matter.

I'm simply explaining why I am not so impressed with the DA's new announcement & what it would take to make me more comfortable with the investigation.

It certainly is strange for a DA to make an announcement declaring someone innocent. Of course, it is just symbolic and carries with it no legal weight.

Look, there is no doubt that this is a difficult case, and honest, smart people can come to different conclusions. I respect yours and others opinions as well even if I disagree with them.

 

[LI_Mom]

It certainly is strange for a DA to make an announcement declaring someone innocent. Of course, it is just symbolic and carries with it no legal weight.

Look, there is no doubt that this is a difficult case, and honest, smart people can come to different conclusions. I respect yours and others opinions as well even if I disagree with them.

Thanks, Jayce.

And that's why juries do not always come back with a unanimous decision.... people look at things from their own personal frame of reference & can come to completely different conclusions.


I lean VERY strongly towards RDI but sometimes will still find myself drifting back on to the fence. I try to be fair.

 

[BBB167893]

Haven't they used this male DNA to exclude others in this case?

How can they do that if it is not a DNA profile?

That's one of the myths in this case, blueeyes. The DNA, in and of itself, was never used to exclude anyone.

The thing that matters to me is the evidence. And the evidence seems to indicate to me that there was an intruder.

I get you. But I have a list here at my desk of reasons to suspect an inside job, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't join you just yet.

I am not here to defend or attack the DA.

Well, that's all right with me.

It certainly is strange for a DA to make an announcement declaring someone innocent. Of course, it is just symbolic and carries with it no legal weight.

Right.

Look, there is no doubt that this is a difficult case, and honest, smart people can come to different conclusions. I respect yours and others opinions as well even if I disagree with them.

Absolutely.

 

[Wudge]

It certainly is strange for a DA to make an announcement declaring someone innocent. Of course, it is just symbolic and carries with it no legal weight.

Look, there is no doubt that this is a difficult case, and honest, smart people can come to different conclusions. I respect yours and others opinions as well even if I disagree with them.

As far as assessing the evidence, this is not at all a difficult case . The evidence is easy to assess.

The thrice-matched DNA evidence on JonBenet's underpants and leggings is real and tops the evidence list. It exonerates the Ramseys. Of course, that means an intruder tops the list of suspects.

The ransom note is the second best item of real evidence. The experts excluded John and Burke as the writer of the note and rated Patsy "low probability". The ransom note highly favors an intruder too.

In third place is the DNA that found under JonBenet's fingernail. It also favors an intruder.

In fourth place I have the unsourced light brown cotton fibers that were found on the wood shards of the broken paintbrush, the nylon cord, JonBenet's body and the duct tape. Given that these fibers were found on many of key pieces of real evidence but were not sourced, they clearly point to an intruder.

Also unsourced to anything in the Ramsey house is the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth and the and garrote cord. That favors an intruder as well and is next on my list

What follows on my list is the specialized knot that was used to tie the cord to the broken paint brush. That knot shows expertise and clearly favors an intruder.

There is also evidence that the intruder used a stun gun. Plus, there is missing notepad paper that was nowhere to be found in the house.

Etc., etc., ad nauseum

Net, there is a simple explanation as to why the Grand Jury refused to indict the Ramseys; i.e., the evidence is easy to assess. It clearly points to an intruder. Easy case.

 

[BBB167893]

The ransom note is the second best item of real evidence. The experts excluded John and Burke as the writer of the note and rated Patsy "low probability". The ransom note highly favors an intruder too.

No, the Ramsey-hired "experts" rated her "low-probability." She got anywhere from "she wrote it" to "might have written it." It all comes down to Occam's Razor: if she didn't write it, there's no reason for any similarities of her writing to be there at all.

In fourth place I have the unsourced light brown cotton fibers that were found on the wood shards of the broken paintbrush, the nylon cord, JonBenet's body and the duct tape. Given that these fibers were found on many of key pieces of real evidence but were not sourced, they clearly point to an intruder.

I think Henry Lee said those came from JB's doll.

Also unsourced to anything in the Ramsey house is the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth and the and garrote cord. That favors an intruder as well and is next on my list

Patsy's credit card records showed she bought an item from a hardware store whose price matched the price of the duct tape sold there. Plus, Henry Lee thought it might have been a used piece, again possibly from the My Twinn doll.

What follows on my list is the specialized knot that was used to tie the cord to the broken paint brush. That knot shows expertise and clearly favors an intruder.

WAY wrong:

Special prosecutor Michael Kane (in response to Mary Keenan's statement that she supported the Carnes decision) stated: "I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots." I've tied that knot three times. John Ramsey was a sailing enthusiast and Burke was a Boy Scout.

There is also evidence that the intruder used a stun gun.

I laugh at that.

On December 26, 2006, Carol McKinley conducted an exclusive Fox News interview with Tom Wickman, former BPD Detective and Grand Jury BPD representative. According to Internet poster Koldkase, Wickman "said a lot of false information has gotten in the public about the evidence. He wouldn't specify, for obvious reasons, but McKinley brought up that the "stun gun" allegations are WRONG, that the BPD PROVED that the marks on JonBenet's face ARE BRUISES, NOT STUN GUN INJURIES." In this version of the interview, it is clear that Wickman is the source of this information, but McKinley merely asserts "he believes" the injuries to be bruises.

Dr. Werner Spitz said they were scratches, as does the autopsy. Robert Stratbucker said no stun gun was used, and he is, from what I can gather, THE GUY to talk to about stun gun injuries. Not only that, but the marks were the wrong distance apart to be the prongs of a stun gun. PLUS, I have a little experience with this. I own one of these things. I've been zapped several times, and the marks looked nothing like that. Sides which, a stun gun makes a lot of noise, does not render someone unconscious and wears off rather quickly. I can keep going.

Net, there is a simple explanation as to why the Grand Jury refused to indict the Ramseys; i.e., the evidence is easy to assess. It clearly points to an intruder. Easy case.

Really. One of the actual Grand Jurors says it differently:

Grand Juror Michelle Czopek stated "The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child."

Doesn't sound like they considered much evidence to me at all, but were naive and prejudiced. That kind of junk has no business in a jury box, as I'm sure Wudge will agree, since we agree that juries just aren't what they used to be.

No, there's a different reason why the Ramseys weren't charged: nobody could prove which one of them actually killed her and which one just helped cover it up:

PMPT, paperback page 671:

"the prosecution would have to prove which parent was responsible for the assault. That left prosecutors with the troubling question of which parent, if either of them, had knowingly caused the child's death. Until investigators could identify each parent's individual actions, two suspects meant no suspects."

You'll have to do better.