Serious DNA discussion

[LI_Mom]

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).

Why would they bother to rule out ALL known contacts that JB had the day of her murder?

Doesn't it make much more sense to find a profile & enter it in CODIS & sit back & see if there is ever a match?

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Some say yes to both, Chrishope. The way I heard it is, when stuff like this dries, it becomes skin cells. See where I'm going with this?

 

[LI_Mom]

Some say yes to both, Chrishope. The way I heard it is, when stuff like this dries, it becomes skin cells. See where I'm going with this?

Now that doesn't sound right at all. I don't think one type of cell can ever become a different type of cell.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I think what happened was the skin cells transferred into the underwear and liquified when blood hit it. They never could figure out what it was.

Here, try this:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9301

 

[LI_Mom]

Well, I think what happened was the skin cells transferred into the underwear and liquified when blood hit it. They never could figure out what it was.

Here, try this:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9301

Thanks.

Now, I'm more confused than ever.... what does this mean???


Can DNA, which was in minute particles of saliva in her panties, when
dried, equal the skin cell DNA that was found on her waistband, from the same DNA donor/profile?

The answer is YES!

 

[BBB167893]

Read the topix thread a little further and all shall (hopefully) be made clear.

 

[LI_Mom]

Read the topix thread a little further and all shall (hopefully) be made clear.

Thanks again.

Everyone skirts around what I see are important issues.

They haven't tested ALL known contacts to rule out innocent dna.

They don't mention whether JB could have transferred the sample from her own hand to her own body & they won't test the OTHER items in evidence where they should find the same touch dna.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, I think what happened was the skin cells transferred into the underwear and liquified when blood hit it.

You're kidding, right?

I suppose you can imagine anything you want, put it to words, and post it as long as it somehow fits RDI.

Remember, though, that unknown, foreign, male DNA on JBR's clothing doesn't do anything for any RDI theory.

It supports IDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Thanks again.

Everyone skirts around what I see are important issues.

They haven't tested ALL known contacts to rule out innocent dna.

They don't mention whether JB could have transferred the sample from her own hand to her own body & they won't test the OTHER items in evidence where they should find the same touch dna.

I can't believe you or anyone else would be looking for innocent reasons for unknown male DNA found mixed in a blood stain on underwear on a 6 year old rape homicide victim.

Its like looking for an innocent fox next to the chicken coop. Why would anyone do that?

What's your next claim, that she was never raped, or murdered?

 

[Chrishope]

I can't believe you or anyone else would be looking for innocent reasons for unknown male DNA found mixed in a blood stain on underwear on a 6 year old rape homicide victim.

Its like looking for an innocent fox next to the chicken coop. Why would anyone do that?

What's your next claim, that she was never raped, or murdered?


Someone would do that because they are interested in the truth rather than in supporting a theory at any cost.

She wasn't raped, at least not the night of the murder. At least not if you define rape in the conventional way as penetration of a penis in her vagina. She was molested - something was inserted in her.

She was murdered. That part you got right.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I can't believe you or anyone else would be looking for innocent reasons for unknown male DNA found mixed in a blood stain on underwear on a 6 year old rape homicide victim.

Its like looking for an innocent fox next to the chicken coop. Why would anyone do that?

What's your next claim, that she was never raped, or murdered?


Someone would do that because they are interested in the truth rather than in supporting a theory at any cost.

She wasn't raped, at least not the night of the murder. At least not if you define rape in the conventional way as penetration of a penis in her vagina. She was molested - something was inserted in her.

She was murdered. That part you got right.

rape is defined in my state as simply penetration by anything. It could be a pencil, finger or paintbrush. If it penetrates...it's considered rape.

 

[Chrishope]

rape is defined in my state as simply penetration by anything. It could be a pencil, finger or paintbrush. If it penetrates...it's considered rape.

OK, she was raped then. It's still a leap of logic to assume that the dna MUST be from the killer.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks, Chrishope. But I can handle this one myself.

You're kidding, right?

I can only tell you what I hear.

I suppose you can imagine anything you want, put it to words, and post it as long as it somehow fits RDI.

Please, don't waste my time with that bulls**t.

I can't believe you or anyone else would be looking for innocent reasons for unknown male DNA found mixed in a blood stain on underwear on a 6 year old rape homicide victim.

It's called eliminating reasonable doubt, which is what the DA will have to do.

What's your next claim, that she was never raped, or murdered?

Yeah, actually. She wasn't raped, number one, at least not in the classic sense, and not that night. I don't know about those other times.

The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

As for being murdered, well, I suppose I'm being a bit anal on this point, but from a PURELY legalese standpoint, if it wasn't intentional, it wasn't murder because the killer lacked the mens rea. You can't murder someone you think is already dead. It's all about intent. Most people mistake motive for intent. Motive is the reason you have for doing something; intent is what you plan to do when you get there. Just spitballing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Please, don't waste my time with that bulls**t.

bull**t? is when you chime in with absolutely any remark made by anybody...as long as it fits your basic RDI or IDI POV.

BTW you don't need to respond to posts I make that aren't directed at you. Not everything posted as IDI is requiring a response from you, dig?

 

[BBB167893]

bull**t? is when you chime in with absolutely any remark made by anybody...as long as it fits your basic RDI or IDI POV.

BTW you don't need to respond to posts I make that aren't directed at you. Not everything posted as IDI is requiring a response from you, dig?

Easy, tough guy. Truce, okay? It didn't have to be me. I'm just a little tired of having my motives questioned. That's what I was referring to, not the ideas you have. I'm so sick of hearing how I have no mind of my own. You want to make your points, that's fine. I do the same.

As for me "chiming in," last I checked that's what we were all here for. It's part of being a forum, as the term is understood.

Yeah, I dig. Fine by me.

 

[cynic]

I can't believe you or anyone else would be looking for innocent reasons for unknown male DNA found mixed in a blood stain on underwear on a 6 year old rape homicide victim.

But there are "innocent" explanations:

[SIZE=-1]"Eleven employees wore a freshly laundered item of clothing, with the exception of one participant who wore new panty hose, for a period of time, generally one day. Females wore hosiery, and males wore T-shirts. After the workday, the items were collected and stored in clean paper or plastic bags and were maintained at room temperature until analysis."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"DNA analysis was performed on the items, along with their corresponding pillboxes containing the trace evidence debris, for all study participants, their cohabitants (primarily spouses), if appropriate, and the personnel conducting scraping and DNA analysis (FBI Laboratory 1999)."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Whereas the DNA recovered from the pillbox was a single source, the friction swab contained a major (the wearer) and an unknown minor contributor. The hosiery was removed from the original packaging and worn for an afternoon prior to testing. During this time, the only individual to come in contact with this item was the donor. These results suggest that the extraneous DNA profile may have originated at the manufacturing site or was transferred from the wearer's environment (Locard 1930). Nevertheless, the wearer of this hosiery is clearly identified as the major contributor of DNA in the STR profile."
[/SIZE]http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...01/stouder.htm

Also consider:

"Objects handled by many individuals allproduced profiles with multiple alleles of varying intensity. To determine the effect of multiple handlers, we exchanged polypropylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3, 10 min each) with different genotypes. Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of previous holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the individual. We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer)."
http://www.bioforensics.com/conferen...ngerprints.pdf

Again, more support:

"SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing."
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc...nts/murray.pdf

And finally, (although I have more if necessary)...

"Conclusions:
1.Skin to skin to object secondary transfer of trace DNA was observed.
2.The final person to come into skin contact with an object is not always the donor of the dominant profile recovered."
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modif...cm44-12738.pdf

As I have stated on another thread, Lacy and her minions are free to find "unidentified" "matching" DNA (even though they have not disclosed how many matching markers) in a 100 locations on JBR where JBR herself may have transferred it, and I will be quite unimpressed. Show me a DNA match between her panties and something that only the fictional intruder would have touched such as the garrote and I will give it some consideration.
This just serves to further disgust me with Mary Lacy. I have no idea how she is able to sleep at night, (I guess the same way that John Ramsey does).

 

[TinaD]

Even if the DNA is connected to the crime, the most it can prove is that an unknown male touched her clothing. It does not prove that John and/or Patsy weren't there.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I can't believe you or anyone else would be looking for innocent reasons for unknown male DNA found mixed in a blood stain on underwear on a 6 year old rape homicide victim.

Because they're looking for zebras instead of horses in this case...If it was semen deposited in the underwear, it would make sense to look for a sex predator that left it...If you're talking about a few skin cells, they could have come from anywhere, and it makes honest sense to rule out innocent transfer from playmates or a party guest who may have given her a hug that night.

 

[trixie]

It seems to me the probelm lies with Mary Lacy saying there is no innocent explanation for foreign DNA to be in 3 different places on JB's clothing. But the problem is, there can be. Thus we have this debate. She can really start a fight can't she?

 

[BBB167893]

Let her show up on my doorstep and there'll really be a fight!