Serious DNA discussion

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
magnolia said:
A full spectrum DNA sample was not required to exclude the Ramsey's.

I don't think anyone is so naive to believe that the Ramsey's wouldn't lie.
I do, however, believe the Ramsey's are a bit more intelligent than you are giving them credit for.
Who would compose a ransom note in their own writing in an effort to stage a kidnapping and leave the child in the basement of the home?:waitasec:

Don't you think it would have occurred to either Patsy or John that.....Hey, if we leave a ransom note, we need to remove the body from the house so the kidnapping will be believable. Do you think possibly they thought it was just too cold outside to consider taking the body to another location so they decided the basement would suffice.

Burke, being only nine at the time could have staged a better scenario than this.
With great respect, I never suggested at any time that you needed full spectrum DNA to exclude the Ramseys. The limited 10-array sample was enough to exclude Karr, and presumably the Ramseys, too - although with them being the parents, it would be very hard to pin a charge on them based on DNA, as their DNA could have quite legitimately been all over her.

My entire point, which a staggering number of people seem to completely miss or deliberately ignore, is that any intruder who had such close and prolonged physical contact with the child, would have almost certainly left behind some DNA somewhere significant.

It may be that the forensics people failed miserably to collect the crime scene DNA correctly. If they did collect it properly and comprehensively, there does not appear to have been ANY credible non-Ramsey DNA, and if there wasn't any credible non-Ramsey DNA, and there was no evidence of an intruder...

Even if the limited DNA sample had matched any of the Ramseys, it would not have in ANY way proved their guilt, with them being family. The main point about the DNA is that there was no non-Ramsey DNA present at the crime scene, which is highly suspicious in itself. Almost impossible, in fact.

The Ramseys being "cleared by DNA" is simply a cheap stunt by their big-mouth pinheaded lawyer to throw out some meaningless chaff. It is supremely irrelevant.

Hey, we're all still friends, right?
 
Jolynna said:
Whether JonBenet was strangled first and then struck on the head or the other way around is a matter of debate. As is whether or not she had been previously molested.

Another point of view:

Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault


Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says

[font=arial,helvetica]By Charlie Brennan [/font]



%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.

Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.

''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.

"She's had vaginal penetration.''

Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.

"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.

"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.

"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''

Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.

The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.

"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''

He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.

The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''

And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.

"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.

"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.

That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.

"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.

"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''

Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.

Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
I don't think anyone has any doubt JonBenet was sexually assaulted.
Yes, an object inserted did in fact cause injury to JB's vagina, but this doesn't necessarily mean the crime was sexually motivated.
What better way to cause a child pain than to insert an object very aggressively into the vagina.
I do agree that JonBenet was struck with a blunt object.
Anyone can look at the image of the skull fracture and determine this.
This is why I can't accept the possibility that Patsy pushed JB causing her to hit her head on the bath-tub.
I also don't believe a flash-light would have caused that severe an injury. I think the injury was caused by a very strong swing of the ball-bat.
 
Jolynna said:
Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

However, isn't that disputed? Even Steve Thomas, the king of RDI, believes those fibers were from a washcloth used to wipe her roughly after bedwetting. It is also worth noting he feels she was NOT sexually abused. Rather, she showed signs of vaginal trauma from repeated wipings by her mother.
 
Originally Posted by julianne
They need to explain what those marks are. Buttons doesn't cut it. button indentations disappear quickly and when you get elastic marks they disappear and they don't look like that. They aren't dark like that. Those looked like burn marks you get from a curling iron. It's likely stun gun marks. Spitz is probably biased. Many think they are stun gun marks.
There was NO stun gun... none, zip, nada. There is NO expert that has ever claimed those marks were made by a stun gun... none, zip, nada. Stun guns leave BURNS, not ABRASIONS.

Autopsy Report: "On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified."

MICHAEL KANE (RAMSEY CASE PROSECUTOR): "The thing about the stun gun that everybody keeps coming back to. There was one person who was qualified who actually looked at that little girl’s body on the autopsy table and that was Dr. Meyer, who’s a forensic pathologist. He looked at those very marks and said that they were abrasions. It is a quantum leap-you can take a stun gun and put it up against somebody’s body...and it’s going to leave a burn. It dosen't leave an abrasion. So all these other opinions that have come out that said that this was a stun gun, there is absolutely no way they would ever get into evidence because there is no evidence that these were burns."
Dr. Cyril Wecht: "The stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it."

"I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it."
Even Dr. Dobson, the coroner that Smit used to try and prove the marks were made by a stun gun said "You can't tell from a photo."

This photo is of stun gun marks left on Gerald Boggs who was proven to have been stun gunned prior to death. The photo was taken at the time of his autopsy. As you can clearly see, these marks look NOTHING like the marks left on JBR. Interesting to note that Dr. Doberson was the coroner that buried Boggs.
http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/boggspics.jpg

The only people that believe those marks came from a stun gun are Lou Smit and the Ramsey Spin Team, and even Smit is backing off of that.

Originally Posted by julianne
The fiber evidence doesn't convince me of anything either way. There are probably hundreds of thousands of fibers from all over the home that could've been put there by anybody at anytime. Plus fibers are transferred all over the home at all times.
If one doesn't know or understand why fibers are significant in a crime scene than I can see why that person would not find them significant. Fibers are significant depending on where they are found and if they come from clothing that a suspect was known to have worn about the time of the death. The fibers from PR's sweater were found twisted IN the knot of the garrot, on the sticky side of the duct tape that came off JBR's mouth and in the paint tray. This sweater was the one Patsy ADMITTED to have worn that night. The dark fibers found on JBR's genitals and the crotch of the panties were the same as the ones that came from a shirt that JR ADMITTED to have worn that night.
 
"The factory worker theory isn't believable. If that were the case, then LE would never be able to identify DNA from any crime scene, as every victims clothing would be contaminated ~ from the factory to the clothing store it was purchased from!"

You'd be amazed at how much DNA you have on you right now!

"If John Ramsey knew of someone he'd fired, or someone who'd want retailiation against him, why wouldn't he have led the investigation down that path?"

He tried, many times. It all came back negative.

"The dna is a good sample."

Not according to the investigators.

"There were also many fibers and a caucasion pubic hair on her blanket that can't be traced to anybody."

The hair was matched to Patsy back in 2002.

"There are also animal hairs that can't be traced to anything from the ramseys."

You mean the beaver hair boots that there are PICTURES of Patsy wearing?

"The shoe print they never traced."

Turned out to be Burke's.

"They can't explain away the stun gun marks either. There is no other plausible explanation and the button excuse doesn't cut it."

Are you kidding? The great majority of pathologists have said this is not a stun gun. Stun guns leave burns. These were not burns.

"Jonbenet wasn't hit on the head first, she died when she was strangled, she was barely alive when the blow came that is why there wasn't massive hemmorage."

Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, Thomas Henry, Ronald Wright, all say the head blow came first by a good period of time.

"Fiber evidence is irrelevant because it won't convict or eliminate anybody anyway."

There are a lot of people in prison because of fiber evidence!

"I also don't think the button theory is a reasonable explanation for the marks."

Neither is a stun gun.

"Is the hi tech boot a small size or adult size? That would be helpful."

It wasn't really a boot print. Only the logo was clear.

"Spitz is probably biased."

I won't waste effort on that.

"Many think they are stun gun marks."

One, actually. And he can't keep it straight!

"However, isn't that disputed?"

Prosecutors can't lie about that stuff. They were John's.

"There was NO stun gun... none, zip, nada. There is NO expert that has ever claimed those marks were made by a stun gun... none, zip, nada. Stun guns leave BURNS, not ABRASIONS."

I own one of these babies. I can guarantee it wasn't a stun gun.
 
SuperDave,

I just have to ask, and not in an insulting way, but what does one need or use a stun gun for? What do you use it for? I'm just very curious.
 
Glad to answer. A stun gun is primarily used as a weapon of self-defense. It transmits a shock to an attacker that renders them pacified long enough to get away. It's what they call non-lethal self-defense. It's not meant for sustained use. It's impractical for that, because it doesn't render a person unconscious.
 
Originally Posted by SuperDave
Glad to answer. A stun gun is primarily used as a weapon of self-defense. It transmits a shock to an attacker that renders them pacified long enough to get away. It's what they call non-lethal self-defense. It's not meant for sustained use. It's impractical for that, because it doesn't render a person unconscious.
Just to add to that... primarily they're used by LE to subdue a violent suspect so that lethal force need not be used on them. Essentially, it's to protect a violent suspect from the old form of being subdued like clubbing, hitting, etc. Since the Rodney King episode, officers wanted something other than their guns or conventional means to subdue a violent suspect.

They are cheap, easy to acquire (you can buy one right on the internet), come in various voltages, and many are designed to appear as an innocuous item like a cellphone, blackberry, pager, etc.

However, if you ever think of getting one for self-defense, check your local laws. For example, Pennsylvania has no law against them but Philadelphia County does.
 
Yeah, civilians buy them for self-defense, primarily. I know I did. It's still sort of a gray area, legally.
 
You said:
The fibers from PR's sweater were found twisted IN the knot of the garrot, on the sticky side of the duct tape that came off JBR's mouth and in the paint tray. This sweater was the one Patsy ADMITTED to have worn that night. The dark fibers found on JBR's genitals and the crotch of the panties were the same as the ones that came from a shirt that JR ADMITTED to have worn that night.


Can you please give me the source if this information? Links to statements, by whom, etc.?

I can't find where there is evidence to back up your statements about the sweater fibers in the knot or fibers from John Ramsey's shirt in JonBenet's panties. I'd sure like to see where this has been put in evidence.

Thank you.
 
I don't chat, your wish is my command!

Regarding John:

(See Section 0202, lines 10-24 of Patsy's interview and Section 0057, lines 21-25 and 0058, line 1 of John's interview.)

Regarding Patsy:

Same interview.

And just for those who think the prosecutors were getting cute:

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
 
Juliet10 said:
The dna is a good sample. They use 10 markers in the UK. The dna can be traced to ancestry. If the person is caucasion they most likely have majority european ancestry. They can find out if the dna is majority east asian etc. I'm pretty sure they say it's caucasion. There were also many fibers and a caucasion pubic hair on her blanket that can't be traced to anybody. There are also animal hairs that can't be traced to anything from the ramseys. The shoe print they never traced. They can't explain away the stun gun marks either. There is no other plausible explanation and the button excuse doesn't cut it. Jonbenet wasn't hit on the head first, she died when she was strangled, she was barely alive when the blow came that is why there wasn't massive hemmorage. Fiber evidence is irrelevant because it won't convict or eliminate anybody anyway. There is no evidence John ever sexually abused any daughters or anyone else, period.
It wasn't a pubic hair.
It was a hair from someones arm and that someone was Patsy!
 
Over the past week, I have seen several discussions which discuss "the fact" that the DNA came from a "white male".

We do NOT know this to be a fact. The source of the "caucasian DNA" is Lin Wood and a few newspapers who probably picked it up from him. There is no official report which refers to the DNA being from a "white male" - just that it is "male".

Expert opinions on race and DNA are divided. Race can often be determined from mitochondrial DNA which is found in hair due to the fact that a massive database was created with mtDNA data from known donors and race details were recorded too. mtDNA is copied down the female line and is not as unique as nuclear DNA - i.e. you will have the same mtDNA as your mother and siblings.

However, determining race from nuclear DNA is not so straightforward. Many experts (from the Human Genome Project no less) will simply say that you cannot determine race from nuclear DNA. A scientist whose name escapes me claims to have developed a technique for ascertaining race from nuclear DNA by using genes for certain health problems. For example, the gene for sickle cell anaemia would suggest that the person is black. He published his paper but as of early this year, his research had not been peer reviewed - essential in science. A scientific discovery is not considered sound until other scientists have replicated the research and stated "Yep - he/she is right".

Here are some reasons to suspect that the DNA is NOT known to be from a white male:-

1. Tom Bennett did not say that it was white/caucasian in John Mark Karr's arrest warrant. Only that it was male. As Miss Marple says, surely if they knew the DNA was from a WHITE male, that would be a significant fact to mention in the arrest warrant of a WHITE male?

2. When Peter Boyles asked Henry Lee about the DNA being "caucasian", Henry Lee said he hadn't heard that - just that it was male.

3. Tom Bennett and Mary Lacy have both stated publicly that the DNA might not be the killer's.

4. The Asian sneeze theory has been repeated many times by the media - so why hasn't someone from the Ramsey camp come forward and vehemently disputed it if the DNA is known to be caucasian? Surely Lou Smit or Lin Wood would be shouting it from the highest hill if it were the case?

They aren't. The only people who discuss "caucasian" DNA are the RST - Ramsey Spin Team. A group of people who unfortunately appear to be so besotted with the Ramseys that they seem willing to turn a blind eye to some very basic evidential facts. People like Michael Tracey - who makes Ramsey works of fiction and sells them as "documentaries". Groups of people at jameson's and Margoo's forums who fall at the feet of the Ramseys, Lin Wood and Lou Smit and who will tie themselves in knots in their attempts to rationalise non-exculpatory evidence and Ramsey behaviour.

<Margoo> Good Evening Mr. Wood, oh exalted one
http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=DCForumID101&om=1513&omm=0

The fact is, that we do NOT know that the DNA is caucasian. The only reliable sources we have about the DNA do not mention the word "caucasian". Therefore any source which tries to tell you it IS caucasian should be treated with a great deal of mistrust.

As Mary Lacy says - people who lie about one thing are usually lying about other things. ;-)
 
From a company who trace ancestry using DNA:-

  • <LI class=bodyblue>Can a DNA analysis identify my racial or ethnic background?
  • No. There is no genetic basis for ethnicity or race. Our MatriLine service identifies your ancient ancestral mother, who lived at a time that pre-dates our notions of ethnicity and race. We know upon which continent all the clan mothers lived, but the modern day descendents of any single clan mother will be from many different countries, ethnic backgrounds and races.
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/faqs.htm#2
 
The name of the scientist whose work was not peer reviewed was Risch. The following applies to his studies:-


Still, researchers using new technologies have shown

that DNA variation measured in humans from across the

globe can be used to roughly categorize individuals into

clusters based on the similarity of certain sections of their

genetic code (Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002; Rosenberg

et al., 2002). Those categories—labeled by Risch and

his colleagues as Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders,

East Asians, and Native Americans—loosely correspond to

the social categories of race (Risch et al., 2002; Rosenberg

et al., 2002). It should be noted, however, that these findings

only result if one starts with individuals whose recent

ancestors all derive from one geographic area—and of

course that does not apply to an increasing proportion of

individuals. It should also be noted that the number of

"groups" is subject to the analysis of the data and the

geographic areas of the world that are sampled. Human

genetic variation is a continuum across the world (Serre &

Pa¨a¨bo, 2004).

Race and ethnicity are complex sociopolitical constructs.

They are variable and fluid, changing over time and

differing throughout the world (see, e.g., Harris, Consorte,

Lang, & Byrne, 1993; Jacobson, 1998; Snowden, 1983).

How can researchers reconcile what may at first blush seem

contradictory claims?

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp6019.pdf
 
"You'd be amazed at how much DNA you have on you right now!

You're right.

If I had matching unknown male DNA in more than one form, on more than one article of clothing that I don't remember putting on, with some of the unknown male DNA mixed in with stains of my blood, I would be VERY amazed.
 
So, can we conclude then, that the dna in both the panties and longjohns is somewhat degraded and probably not left there the night of the murder? Or could it have degraded in that period of time?

Can we conclude that the panty dna was a much smaller sample and therefore might have been due to secondary transfer from the longjohns?
 
So, can we conclude then, that the dna in both the panties and longjohns is somewhat degraded and probably not left there the night of the murder? Or could it have degraded in that period of time?

Can we conclude that the panty dna was a much smaller sample and therefore might have been due to secondary transfer from the longjohns?

See... this is where I get lost.

If JB had this mystery dna under her own nail why can't JB transfer a few of those cells from her hand to her OWN BODY?


Why don't we know WHICH fingernail this dna comes from & whether they actually tested & FOUND touch dna on BOTH sides of her waistband or merely tested on both sides?
 
Tell me all the playmates and party guests have been ruled out as a source of the foreign DNA....

She was presumably playing with other children and could have picked up their skin cells under her fingernails and deposited them in her underwear

She would have been using a family bathroom that all the other guests used. Kids have to sit on the seat (rather than the squat/hover technique many adult females prefer) and often drag their drawers against the toilet base (picking up God knows what).
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,764
Total visitors
2,886

Forum statistics

Threads
600,766
Messages
18,113,162
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top