A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

Probably skin cells from where?

Presumably, from his hands. The tDNA was found where investigators thought her killer would have gripped the leggings to pull them down for the sexual part of his crime.
…

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

Presumably, from his hands. The tDNA was found where investigators thought her killer would have gripped the leggings to pull them down for the sexual part of his crime.
…

AK

Presumably, but not definitely.

 

[BOESP]

This article might be helpful in understanding trace or touch DNA and forensic processing methods:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012025/

 

[Annapurna]

Iced T, this is off topic but you mentioned the "faint period". I think what people are referring to is the theory that the period became connected to the C so it is not visible as a separate mark.

 

[BOESP]

Further information on the DNA that supposedly "exonerates" the Ramseys can be found here at post #6:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...uot-Unedited-Notes-From-Ramsey-Case-Documents

A short excerpt is shown below. The entire paper is worth the read. I think the old saying "puffing your wares" could come into play here.

Excerpt from post #6 at above link:
"In the Ramsey investigation, CellMark was able to determine that the primary source of DNA from the fingernail clippings were from a female, and the secondary source was from a male, but that no further conclusions regarding this male could be made. No DNA identification could be made fro the underwear stains or hair other than that JonBenet could possibly be the source."

 

[Anti-K]

Further information on the DNA that supposedly "exonerates" the Ramseys can be found here at post #6:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...uot-Unedited-Notes-From-Ramsey-Case-Documents

A short excerpt is shown below. The entire paper is worth the read. I think the old saying "puffing your wares" could come into play here.

Excerpt from post #6 at above link:
"In the Ramsey investigation, CellMark was able to determine that the primary source of DNA from the fingernail clippings were from a female, and the secondary source was from a male, but that no further conclusions regarding this male could be made. No DNA identification could be made fro the underwear stains or hair other than that JonBenet could possibly be the source."

Beware. Old news. Out-dated information. Possibly misleading. TERRIBLE source. Good grief.

ALSO AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE DNA THAT SUPPOSEDLY "EXONERATES" THE RAMSEYS TO BE FOUND AT POST #6. NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA. THE DNA THAT SUPPOSEDLY "EXONERATES" THE RAMSEYS WASN’T DISCOVERED UNTIL LONG AFTER THE INFORMATION POSTED HERE WAS WRITTEN.
…

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Further information on the DNA that supposedly "exonerates" the Ramseys can be found here at post #6:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...uot-Unedited-Notes-From-Ramsey-Case-Documents

A short excerpt is shown below. The entire paper is worth the read. I think the old saying "puffing your wares" could come into play here.

Excerpt from post #6 at above link:
"In the Ramsey investigation, CellMark was able to determine that the primary source of DNA from the fingernail clippings were from a female, and the secondary source was from a male, but that no further conclusions regarding this male could be made. No DNA identification could be made fro the underwear stains or hair other than that JonBenet could possibly be the source."

BOESP,
Now that sounds familar, is that why no reference has been posted so far?

 

[Anti-K]

BOESP,
Now that sounds familar, is that why no reference has been posted so far?

What reference are you looking for?

Did you read what boesp linked to? It is all Before CODIS, out-dated, information. Good grief.
…

AK

 

[BOESP]

Beware. Old news. Out-dated information. Possibly misleading. TERRIBLE source. Good grief.

ALSO AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE DNA THAT SUPPOSEDLY "EXONERATES" THE RAMSEYS TO BE FOUND AT POST #6. NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA. THE DNA THAT SUPPOSEDLY "EXONERATES" THE RAMSEYS WASN’T DISCOVERED UNTIL LONG AFTER THE INFORMATION POSTED HERE WAS WRITTEN.
…

AK

I thought you said the DNA in the panties and the tDNA from the long-john waistband matched? Are you saying the CODIS DNA submission came from the long johns and not the panties?

My version: Beware. Old news is still evidence. Out-dated information doesn't mean it is nil (or null). Possibly misleading -- well, I agree with you on that because Lacy certainly made a misleading comment and her followers usually fail to mention her later statements that the DNA could mean nothing to JonBenet's case.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Now that sounds familar, is that why no reference has been posted so far?

Good question UKGuy.

 

[observation]

Mixed trace DNA profiles add yet another level of complexity to the interpretative process. Mixed samples may be composed of one or more major contributors with high quantities of DNA and with a minor contributor present only at trace levels. . Alternatively, all contributors' DNA within the mixture may be at trace levels. Furthermore, DNA truly derived from a single source could be treated as a mixture due to high stutter peaks being present , therefore, wrongly interpreted as coming from multiple individuals.
From BOESP's link. I do not work in the field of forensics but the process is amazing to read about and the fact that we are dealing with a mixed sample only compounds the difficulty with interpretation. Thank you for sharing this article about tDNA analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012025/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

You are very welcome, observation.

 

[Anti-K]

I thought you said the DNA in the panties and the tDNA from the long-john waistband matched? Are you saying the CODIS DNA submission came from the long johns and not the panties?

My version: Beware. Old news is still evidence. Out-dated information doesn't mean it is nil (or null). Possibly misleading -- well, I agree with you on that because Lacy certainly made a misleading comment and her followers usually fail to mention her later statements that the DNA could mean nothing to JonBenet's case.

Wow. I have no idea how you became so confused.

The source you linked to and quoted from is The Bonita Papers. Leaving their controversial nature aside, it is very important to note that these papers pre-date the CODIS sample and the matching tDNA sample. They aren’t mentioned because they weren’t yet known to exist.

Yes, the CODIS and the tDNA sample match. The CODIS sample came from the panties, it was commingled n the victim’s blood. There were two blood spots tested, the second one tested is the CODIS sample. Your source is outdated.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Mixed trace DNA profiles add yet another level of complexity to the interpretative process. Mixed samples may be composed of one or more major contributors with high quantities of DNA and with a minor contributor present only at trace levels. . Alternatively, all contributors' DNA within the mixture may be at trace levels. Furthermore, DNA truly derived from a single source could be treated as a mixture due to high stutter peaks being present , therefore, wrongly interpreted as coming from multiple individuals.
From BOESP's link. I do not work in the field of forensics but the process is amazing to read about and the fact that we are dealing with a mixed sample only compounds the difficulty with interpretation. Thank you for sharing this article about tDNA analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012025/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is all very nice, but it’s important to note that the CODIS sample was NOT tDNA.

Of course, I hope everyone realizes that the complexities involved, particularly with mixed samples, are well known to the experts. Mixed samples are routinely discovered and analyzed. In this case some of the difficulties should have been fairly easy to resolve because one of the two samples was jbr’s, so they had a reference for that.

And, of course, the two matching samples found on the leggings serves to confirm the CODIS results. So, the concerns generally raised with mixed samples are resolved quite nicely in this case.
…

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Wow. I have no idea how you became so confused.

The source you linked to and quoted from is The Bonita Papers. Leaving their controversial nature aside, it is very important to note that these papers pre-date the CODIS sample and the matching tDNA sample. They aren’t mentioned because they weren’t yet known to exist.

Yes, the CODIS and the tDNA sample match. The CODIS sample came from the panties, it was commingled n the victim’s blood. There were two blood spots tested, the second one tested is the CODIS sample. Your source is outdated.
…

AK

Anti-K,

There were two blood spots tested, the second one tested is the CODIS sample. Your source is outdated.

Were the samples of blood spots from two different people and if not, what was the source of the CODIS dna sample, no stories please?

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Were the samples of blood spots from two different people and if not, what was the source of the CODIS dna sample, no stories please?

.

Both blood spots: major component jbr; minor component unknown male.

First blood spot tested Before CODIS: one marker identified, according to Smit deposition the foreign male component matched BOTH fingernail samples. Kolar makes NO mention of this blood spot finding and Kolar contradicts Smit’s claim and tells us that the fingernail findings do NOT match. Later, this first blood spot was retested using the CODIS Kit and one marker plus one very weak marker were found.

Second blood spot: same as first blood spot except this one was tested only with CODIS Kit and 9 plus 1 very weak marker was identified, the weak marker later strengthened to give a total of 10 markers. This is the CODIS sample.
The foreign male component in these samples is believed to probably be saliva.

The first blood spot, for the most part, seems to have been forgotten in time and is rarely mentioned any more.
…

AK

 

[BOESP]

Wow. I have no idea how you became so confused.

The source you linked to and quoted from is The Bonita Papers. Leaving their controversial nature aside, it is very important to note that these papers pre-date the CODIS sample and the matching tDNA sample. They aren’t mentioned because they weren’t yet known to exist.

Yes, the CODIS and the tDNA sample match. The CODIS sample came from the panties, it was commingled n the victim’s blood. There were two blood spots tested, the second one tested is the CODIS sample. Your source is outdated.
…

AK

I'm not the one confused.

Purposely convoluted posts are easy to see through.

 

[Ellie9]

Is it normal at all though to have a direct transfer of saliva from the perp to the victim with only 9 or 10 markers? If someone on the scene coughed or sneezed or whatever on the victim wouldn't there be a good amount of strong saliva DNA?

I mean especially with how rigorous they were with a lot of testing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Both blood spots: major component jbr; minor component unknown male.

First blood spot tested Before CODIS: one marker identified, according to Smit deposition the foreign male component matched BOTH fingernail samples. Kolar makes NO mention of this blood spot finding and Kolar contradicts Smit’s claim and tells us that the fingernail findings do NOT match. Later, this first blood spot was retested using the CODIS Kit and one marker plus one very weak marker were found.

Second blood spot: same as first blood spot except this one was tested only with CODIS Kit and 9 plus 1 very weak marker was identified, the weak marker later strengthened to give a total of 10 markers. This is the CODIS sample.
The foreign male component in these samples is believed to probably be saliva.

The first blood spot, for the most part, seems to have been forgotten in time and is rarely mentioned any more.
…

AK

Anti-K,
You have an extremely unattractive habit of not answering the question put to you and launching yourself off onto some theoretical tangent that may or may not have any relevance, patently you think this is a winning strategy.

I'll try again: Were the two samples of blood spots from two different people?

.

 

[andreww]

Is it normal at all though to have a direct transfer of saliva from the perp to the victim with only 9 or 10 markers? If someone on the scene coughed or sneezed or whatever on the victim wouldn't there be a good amount of strong saliva DNA?

I mean especially with how rigorous they were with a lot of testing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is the scary thing about DNA, you don't even need contact to transfer it. I was reading about another case where unidentified DNA was found on an item. Turns out it belonged to a lab worker who happened to have stopped by for a quick chat when the item was being processed. Now let's look at this case and look at what kind of media frenzy was going on. Is it not conceivable that somebody peaked in the evidence locker? We are not even talking about the days following the crime, but years later. Not one person peaked? Nobody?

Just remember that JBRs morgue entry was stolen, photos were stolen, credit card records and phone records were stolen. Where there is money to be made, there are people who will peak in a box, and there will be DNA found


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk