:spit:
SuperDave, I've never laid eyes on Van Zandt in my life. You must have me confused with another poster. No biggie. It happens when you read so much in the case through the years. Sorry, wish I had been there.
One more thing: Do people really "GET" how small a DNA strand is? It's a small PART of a CELL. We're talking about a PARTIAL strand of DNA in the underwear, which isn't even positively identified as being from a cell of saliva or mucous or skin, and a few strands of DNA collected from the long johns, which they ALSO can't positively identify as saliva, mucous, or skin. If you read the TV interviews done with the lab scientist who did the actual processing of the long johns, you will see she only says the cells from which come the DNA "are most likely skin cells". She doesn't actually know, then, does she?
Now think about this: you could get thousands of cells on the head of a pin. Here's an interesting animation to compare red blood cells to the head of a pin and a human hair. Don't forget to use the "magnification" arrows to go up and down from the pinhead to the cells and viruses. (That ebola one gets me!)
http://www.cellsalive.com/howbig.htm
Now think about the Bloomies being huge enough to move quite randomly over the body, and they're inside the long johns, which Patsy said she put on JonBenet that night. So how can we know that the minute cells, some only having degraded strands of DNA, didn't transfer from the long johns to the underwear, or vice versa? Patsy had her hands on the sides of the long johns, could have pulled up the huge Bloomies first without even thinking about it, as they surely would have come down with the pants when Patsy pulled those off, as loose as the underwear was. Was it impossible for Patsy to transfer that DNA around in dressing the child?
It's simply not prudent to throw out all the other evidence because of a few cells of DNA found in the child's clothes that have an unknown donar, IMO. This science is so new, so untested in court, it's mind boggling that Lacy didn't think about how far out on a limb she was going with it.
Now I'm trying to figure out what happened with the bloodstains on the "shirt", the "white blanket", and the "nightgown", listed in the lab document screen captured from one of the shows on this case. Who does that DNA belong to? Mark Beckner was asked about it under oath, by Lin Wood in a deposition. Beckner wouldn't say much, but what we can glean from what he did say is that someone else's DNA was found at the crime scene, and that person may have been identified, as well. If it's someone with an alibi or innocent reason for their DNA to be there, it only goes to show how easily DNA/cells move around this world in which we live without us knowing it.
Well, food for thought. We really don't know what is the importance of what we're being fed until we hear it testified to in court under oath, or until we see the documents at the very least.
