Where did you read about the number of LOCI with the recent testings?
POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?
- Thread starter Tristan
- Start date
That is interesting. The esteemed Dr. Lee is the one who brought out the theory of older DNA and then went and bought some underwear of similar packaging and found DNA and that is how this theory started. Do you think Henry is wrong?
I think they were able to determine more LOCI with JB's DNA than the "unknown male" because there was more of JB's DNA. It could also be because the male's DNA was more degraded. But this degradation wouldn't be due to it being older than JB's.
Are you sure Jayce? Henry thought it might be.
What in the world? I am not talking about any theory relating to Dr. Lee. I am talking about your claim that the unknown DNA was older than JB's because they were only able to determine 10 LOCI (rather than 13). I am saying that this claim is without merit.
Maybe it is older, but you can't tell that by the level of degradation.
Dr. Lee speculated that the DNA could have been from a factory worker (which we now know is untrue); but this has nothing to due with the subject of DNA degradation due to time.
Gee Jayce,
I think you said the following:
"I think they were able to determine more LOCI with JB's DNA than the "unknown male" because there was more of JB's DNA. It could also be because the male's DNA was more degraded. But this degradation wouldn't be due to it being older than JB's."
Henry's theory is that the DNA in the underwear was older and put there before that evening, e.g. a factory worker.
You say that it would have to be a lot longer than say that amount of time for it to degrade. Apparently Henry thinks it could degrade in the amount of time it took -
So do you think Henry is wrong in his theory that the DNA in the underwear is older and possibly from a factory worker?
Really, and you know that for a fact Jayce. You know that the DNA in the underwear if it were from a factory worker and does not have the 13 markers that it would have to be degraded from something other than "time"?
Honey? Really?!?
I am "obsessed" with Latin because I have used a few Latin terms that are commonly used in argument? Wow, that sound like another.....non-sequitur.
Ahh, but we do not know it is untrue. There is Lacy saying that she believes it is untrue. Lacy has a checkered past and Lin Wood believed that Lacy thought Patsy was innocent long before this test as he said so on LKL - "the fact that Lacy went to her funeral, means she is innocent". So you may think you know this, but it is not a fact. There are many forensics who disagree with it and say it is premature to suppose anything.
Not another one; that is three in one conversation. Me thinks you over do. As in the Ramsey case, you seem to find something you like and swear it is the end all of everything. Jayce, Darlin, you need to step back and take a breath and think about what you are saying before you are so positive you are correct. There is a lot more to this case then what you are presenting.
TexMex
Punishment is justice for the unjust.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,615
- Reaction score
- 56
Hi Solace
So this factory worker sneezed on the longjohns too? Of course he's wrong.
He testified FOR OJ Simpson in a DNA case. He says whatever he has to for whoever hires him (Alex Hunter).
Hey Tex,
I am not the one touting Henry, Jayce is -- way back there in one of his posts he says Dr. Henry Lee is part of the report that explains touch dna (not verbatim but you get the idea).
Tex, I am debating whether or not this DNA got there by a murderer or whether it got there by some other method. That is a possibility that Jayce disagrees with to say the very least.
Not only did he testify for OJ, he also testified for Spector and frankly made a complete *advertiser censored* out of himself. But Jayce seems to swear by him. (Just kidding Jayce, another non sequitur or ad hominem - you get the idea).
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I am not Solace of course....but, the touch dna could have transferred onto the long johns from the panties. Its called secondary transfer. If you read up on "touch dna" you will see that if you shake hands with someone, and then commit a murder, the person that you shook hands with...DNA ...could be at the scene of the crime. If you touch something...and I touch something after you....I will have YOUR "touch dna" on me. So, its not very accurate...
Thank you Dave.
Now I guarantee AMES, Jayce will reply.
True
True
Yeah, but I am talking about degradation due to the passage of time. Not some other reason.
Show me where Henry says anything about the DNA found in the panties and degradation due to time. Solace, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
You claimed that we know that the unknown DNA was deposited before JB's DNA because they were able to define 13 LOCI with JB's and 10 LOCI with the unknown's. This doesn't follow. Even if the unknown DNA is older, you wouldn't be able to tell this by the DNA. There wouldn't have been enough of an elapse in time.
The reason that they defined 10 LOCI with the unknown DNA is likely because there was a small amount to test.
I think this theory has been invalidated by the new evidence found on the leggings.