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

[Jayce]

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

Not a chance. There is no way you could get a complete profile (like they did) from this type of secondary transfer.

 

[Jayce]

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.

Many of the investigators I have read said that it was probably saliva (obviously, they could be wrong).

 

[Medea]

Many of the investigators I have read said that it was probably saliva (obviously, they could be wrong).

I guess "probably" saliva doesn't make much sense to me..either they know the source of the DNA or it was too miniscule for them to know the source. Or there are some sources than can be ruled out and some that cannot be excluded.

If they can't ID the source of the DNA then how or why would anyone conclude it was 'probably' saliva? For what reason would anyone conclude that it was probably saliva instead of probably from skin cells?

Of course saliva would be a huge boon to the intruder theory because saliva on a 6 year old's underwear isn't going to get there from transfer and there isn't any innocent explanation for it.

But Lacy's letter doesn't mention saliva as in...two types of DNA sources...saliva and skin...from the same person.

 

[Solace]

Not a chance. There is no way you could get a complete profile (like they did) from this type of secondary transfer.

They have a complete profile? They know it is a male. That is it.

 

[Solace]

Where and when? Although he is more noncommital than other investigator's I have read (who have concluded that it was liquid), I've read that he suggested that it could have been from saliva or liquid from a sneeze etc.

Aha. Its interesting how you denigrate the motives and analysis of the investigators that disagree with you. Just because some of them worked for the Ramsey's does not mean that their analysis or information was wrong.

Ok. But what I am saying is that whoever killed JonBenet (whether the Ramsey's or an intruder), was in contact with her leggings and undergarments. The fact that an unidentified male's DNA was found on 2 articles of clothing and in 3 separate locations is compelling evidence that he was the killer.

I don't know why you find that compelling unless of course you have this deep belief that the Ramseys are innocent. Because that is hardly compelling evidence that an intruder committed the crime.

Why aren't you so compelled that Patsy did it since she left four fibers from her jacket underneath the tape over her daughter's mouth and in the garrotte.

Now that I find compelling.

also:

fyi:

"From the transcript of the Nancy Grace show with Angela Williamson, Bode Technology:

"GRACE: That only leaves hair, skin, nails. Do we know what substance it was?

"WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone`s hand"

 

[BBB167893]

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

I didn't know anything about that, RR. Please enlighten me.

If the unknown male DNA is trivial and insignificant because it just can be transfered from anyone (strange they remain unknown though but that is just my thoughts) yet we all know that fiber and trace evidence can spread throughout a home daily in so many common ways. Especially if they are the dwellers of the residence.

I had a feeling you'd say that, blueeyes. All shall be made clear momentarily.

So it means nothing that the unknown male DNA has been found on the actual clothes the victim was wearing but it means everything that Patsy, who lived there, who went to the basement of her home several times, had her paints/brushes stored down there and could have possibly worn the red sweater or another red sweater in the same fabric at other times and those fibers were found in the basement inside her own home?

She said herself she never painted or went into the basement wearing those clothes, which, for all I know, could have been new.

It cant be the location where they were found that makes a difference from what I can understand

it damn well can.

because here we have the male DNA in JBs panties and her long johns and that location just doesn't seem to be important to many so why is the fibers found more compelling?

I'll give you a COUPLE of reasons:

1) We have no idea when this DNA was left. It could be months old. But we KNOW that Patsy wore those clothes THAT NIGHT

2) AND AND AND her story for how the fibers got there doesn't hold up. Her own book (and police reports) contradict her account. OOPS.

3) In order to prove the DNA was from an intruder, you have to prove there WAS an intruder. There are, at present, only four people who can be conclusively proven to be in the house that night, and two of them are dead. People say, "so what if they were in the house? It's nothing." It is ASSUREDLY NOT nothing. It goes to means and opportunity. You have to look at the big picture. Take a holistic view of the case. (Does wonders for me)

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".

Not just that. They said the broken glass was evidence of an intruder, but we KNOW that John broke that window and didn't fix it AND that Fleet White was milling around in that room touching stuff he shouldn't have. The bootprint was shown to be Burke's a long time ago. (2002)

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.

Damn right I know her!

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.

You'd be amazed what someone will do when he thinks he can get away with it.

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.

So was the underwear DNA. But like I keep saying: DNA tests are so much more advanced now, what is minute can still give up its secrets.

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?

I'll tell you how. Just spitballing, but the DNA in the underwear may not be liquid, but skin cells in a liquid state. This wasn't DNA mixed with blood, but more likely DNA that JB bled onto.

There is no way you could get a complete profile (like they did) from this type of secondary transfer.

I haven't heard that they got a full profile. I think it's a question that the tests have just gotten better. At least, that's the idea I got from this.

Many of the investigators I have read said that it was probably saliva (obviously, they could be wrong).

For reasons known to many of us.

Let me put it to you this way: if it was an intruder (it may have been, for all I know), it's more than likely he'd have to have gotten to her before. Several times.

 

[Jayce]

They have a complete profile? They know it is a male. That is it.

No. They have a profile which is now in CODIS.

 

[BBB167893]

They've had that profile in CODIS for five years, Jayce.

 

[Solace]

They've had that profile in CODIS for five years, Jayce.

Hi SD,

On another topic. You've done so much research, much more than I have. I couldn't get through DOI. Believe me I tried, and may again, but tell me how Patsy contradicts herself about the fibers. I am not doubting you, just want to give myself more indigestion. Thanks SD.

 

[Solace]

They've had that profile in CODIS for five years, Jayce.

Exactly SD. I cannot wait for the next bombshell to be dropped.

 

[Jayce]

I don't know why you find that compelling unless of course you have this deep belief that the Ramseys are innocent. Because that is hardly compelling evidence that an intruder committed the crime.

If you don't find it compelling that they have found an unknown man's DNA on 2 articles of clothing, in 3 different locations, in places we know the killer probably was in contact with (and that it is virtually impossible for this to have been the result of secondary transfer), then their is not much else for me to say.

Why aren't you so compelled that Patsy did it since she left four fibers from her jacket underneath the tape over her daughter's mouth and in the garrotte.

Because fiber evidence isn't anywhere close to be remotely as compelling as DNA evidence. From the FBI's website... " It can never be stated with certainty that a fiber originated from a particular garment" Also, because (apparently) there were hundreds of fibers found on the tape. In addition, Dr. Henry Lee stated that he didn't think the fibers were neccesarily significant.

"From the transcript of the Nancy Grace show with Angela Williamson, Bode Technology:

"GRACE: That only leaves hair, skin, nails. Do we know what substance it was?

"WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone`s hand"

What's your point? They are referring to the new DNA found on the leggings. Earlier, when I was referring to "liquid" DNA, I was talking about the DNA found in the panties.

 

[Jayce]

They've had that profile in CODIS for five years, Jayce.

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.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, here goes.

In 2002, two years after she was asked to give an innocent explanation, she told "48 Hours" that, quote:

"After John discovered the body and she was brought to the living room, when I laid eyes on her, I knelt down and hugged her, but I was--I had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers or whatever I had on that morning are going to transfer to her clothing."

Okay, that's what she said.

But here's what DOI said:

"I rip the tape off her mouth, begging her to talk to me. I pull the blanket off her...I run to the living room...Patsy will be coming in...She must not see JonBenet like this. I get a blanket to cover JonBenet. I lay the blanket over her."

So by John's own account, JB was already fully covered up by a second blanket (not the one from the basement) before Patsy ever saw her. Patsy's story might account for the fibers on THAT blanket (and to my knowledge, none of her fibers were mentioned as being on JB's clothing to start with), but not the one in the basement. OOPS! She should have asked her lawyer for her money back.

Wendy Murphy herself weighed in on this:

"Patsy's story would require flat-out magic. Her fibers would have had to float downstairs and down a hallway and land on and in those specific areas, since they weren't brought upstairs until later that day, when everyone was evacuated."

Mm-mm-mm.

 

[BBB167893]

If you don't find it compelling that they have found an unknown man's DNA on 2 articles of clothing, in 3 different locations, in places we know the killer probably was in contact with (and that it is virtually impossible for this to have been the result of secondary transfer), then their is not much else for me to say.

You said it, not me. Also,

in 3 different locations, in places we know the killer probably was in contact with (and that it is virtually impossible for this to have been the result of secondary transfer)

is the opinion of a DA whose history with this case, uh, TROUBLED, to put it lightly.

Because fiber evidence isn't anywhere close to be remotely as compelling as DNA evidence. From the FBI's website... " It can never be stated with certainty that a fiber originated from a particular garment" Also, because (apparently) there were hundreds of fibers found on the tape. In addition, Dr. Henry Lee stated that he didn't think the fibers were neccesarily significant.

he said the fibers from the tape were not particularly significant. I would agree. It's when you take all of the locations that they were found in that makes it especially significant. As for the "uncertainty," maybe that's true in a purely technical sense, but we all know that if someone is known to have worn such-and-such at the time of the crime and were in close proximity, it narrows it down. Not only that, but the way they do this is they can trace the fibers to the manufacturer, find out what country it was made in, what stores sell it, etc., which narrows it even more.

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.

Same result: back to square one for this DA.

 

[DeeDee249]

I find it very interesting that LE sources refuse to say exactly WHAT the fluid was that was the source of the male DNA. They say that is was not semen. But won't say what it was. Pre-pubescent males will produce a kind of "pre-semen" type fluid on ejaculation. So the fact that they are saying it was not semen, yet won't say what it was makes me very suspicious. If they are willing to say that it was not semen, why make a point of refusing to identify the liquid? And the theory that maybe it's because they are keeping this information private so that it is something only the killer would know- that doesn't make sense because then they shouldn't have said that it wasn't semen. They shouldn't have said anything.

 

[Jayce]

Also, is the opinion of a DA whose history with this case, uh, TROUBLED, to put it lightly.

It has nothing to do with the opinion of the DA. These are independently verifiable pieces of information.

Same result: back to square one for this DA.

New evidence=extremely compelling, approaching exculpatory evidence

 

[BBB167893]

It has nothing to do with the opinion of the DA. These are independently verifiable pieces of information.

That they are verifiable is not disputed by me, Jayce. That they are grounds for clearing anyone at this moment is the DA's opinion. (And apparently, only her opinion).

New evidence=extremely compelling, approaching exculpatory evidence

Let me be clear: yes, it is significant. But if that's all she's got, it hardly seems enough to clear anyone right now.

Let me be clear about something else, Jayce. I've got nothing against you. We're just two people on opposite sides of this, and I respect that. But I demand the same consideration, okay?

 

[Jayce]

That they are verifiable is not disputed by me, Jayce. That they are grounds for clearing anyone at this moment is the DA's opinion. (And apparently, only her opinion).

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?

 

[Solace]

If you don't find it compelling that they have found an unknown man's DNA on 2 articles of clothing, in 3 different locations, in places we know the killer probably was in contact with (and that it is virtually impossible for this to have been the result of secondary transfer), then their is not much else for me to say.

We don't know it was a man. We know it was a male. See that is what bothers me about this. You hear something like this and all of a sudden you assume grown man. No one has ever said that. It could have been a male child. Easily. She could have been playing and touched him and transferred that to her underwear.

The DNA under her fingernails has I believe 3 markers and you are confident in that. As I understand it, that alone can give a false positive.

 

[Jayce]

[We don't know it was a man. We know it was a male. See that is what bothers me about this.

Ok. My mistake. I was using "male" and "man" interchangeably when they clearly don't mean the same thing.

[It could have been a male child. Easily. She could have been playing and touched him and transferred that to her underwear.

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.

The DNA under her fingernails has I believe 3 markers and you are confident in that. As I understand it, that alone can give a false positive.

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.