DNA Revisited

[BBB167893]

I further suggest that we make up our minds: was JR and PR DNA present and 'dismissed' by people who are making up their minds unilaterally on what is and isn't innocent forensic evidence? Or was JR and PR DNA not present on the underwear, and so they were unwitting hosts to unknown male DNA?

With nothing else to work with so far, I'd go with the first one, at least for now.

 

[BBB167893]

e. He has never discussed it publicly.

15 He has refused to do so. Don Foster was not

16 rejected by the Boulder District Attorney's office

17 because he sought publicity. Don Foster was

18 rejected because he concluded, after being hired

19 by Steve Thomas, that Patsy Ramsey was the author

20 of the note, and they thereafter found out that

21 he had, prior to being hired by the Boulder

22 District Attorney's office, written a three-page

23 letter to Patsy Ramsey stating unequivocally that

24 he would stake his stake his reputation on her innocence

25 that she was not the author of the note.

Nice try, Fang, but the person who said this is either misinformed, or is oversimplifying to the point of distortion (and that's me being generous).

So, read this: http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Then get back to me.

The statement found above was made by the person found guilty of this heinous murder, until he's proven innocent. Due to his conviction, we discredit and discount every word that comes out of his mouth. Remember, the most crucial point about this is simple. This convicted murderer does nothing but lie. He has no credibility whatsoever, ever.

You're breaking my heart, Fang. You're right about the problem with credibility, though.

 

[BBB167893]

All right. I'll do my thing and I'll let you guys know as soon as I hear anything.

Well, folks, I DID get a response. But don't get too excited. I'd say I'm disappointed, but I don't think any of us really expected them to give away the store, did we?

A little context is in order. Here's what I wrote to them:

I am currently putting together a book concerning a case you did some work on: the killing of JonBenet Ramsey.

Let me come to the point. There are several questions I wish to have answered on behalf of my potential audience. I shall list them now:

1) Does the Touch DNA process filter out DNA that is not a match to another known sample? In other words, if a client were to task you with only finding corroborating DNA, is that possible and would you do it?

2) If so, is it commonplace for a client--be it a District Attorney or defense lawyer or cold-case detective--to specify what work you are to do?

All answers to these questions will contribute heavily to a better understanding behind the science of DNA.

Thank you very much.

Here is their response, EXACTLY as was given to me:

No Comment. We cannot talk about an ongoing investigation. Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

Thank you,
Sandra J. Wyatt
Executive Assistant

So that's it. "An ongoing investigation." How convenient. Don't get me wrong, it's probably true, but it brings up a few questions in its own right.

Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

I certainly hope so! I'd like to believe that they really will do that, and that it's not just a crock to placate me. But even then, how likely is it that those investigators will tell me anything?

I'm sorry, guys. I tried. I really did.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Nice try, Fang, but the person who said this is either misinformed, or is oversimplifying to the point of distortion (and that's me being generous).

So, read this: http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Then get back to me.

I offer this up to all.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2 ATLANTA DIVISION

3 ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF,

Plaintiff,

4 CIVIL ACTION FILE

vs.

5 NO. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and

6 PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY,

Defendants.

7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

9 JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY

You're breaking my heart, Fang. You're right about the problem with credibility, though.

You prove the point, perfectly.

 

[BBB167893]

I offer this up to all.

You prove the point, perfectly.

I strive to please!

Let me be clear, Fang: in his deposition, he has to tell the truth, not the facts. I'm sure he believes what he said about Don Foster (I'm also sure that's what his lawyers TOLD him about it); but the facts show that his account is not quite kosher.

I also would submit that after five years, I wouldn't count on a lot of facts, even if they WERE telling the "truth." Self-hypnosis is a very powerful thing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, folks, I DID get a response. But don't get too excited. I'd say I'm disappointed, but I don't think any of us really expected them to give away the store, did we?

A little context is in order. Here's what I wrote to them:

I am currently putting together a book concerning a case you did some work on: the killing of JonBenet Ramsey.

Let me come to the point. There are several questions I wish to have answered on behalf of my potential audience. I shall list them now:

1) Does the Touch DNA process filter out DNA that is not a match to another known sample? In other words, if a client were to task you with only finding corroborating DNA, is that possible and would you do it?

2) If so, is it commonplace for a client--be it a District Attorney or defense lawyer or cold-case detective--to specify what work you are to do?

All answers to these questions will contribute heavily to a better understanding behind the science of DNA.

Thank you very much.

Here is their response, EXACTLY as was given to me:

No Comment. We cannot talk about an ongoing investigation. Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

Thank you,
Sandra J. Wyatt
Executive Assistant

So that's it. "An ongoing investigation." How convenient. Don't get me wrong, it's probably true, but it brings up a few questions in its own right.

Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

I certainly hope so! I'd like to believe that they really will do that, and that it's not just a crock to placate me. But even then, how likely is it that those investigators will tell me anything?

I'm sorry, guys. I tried. I really did.

OK perhaps they can't talk about an ongoing investigation.

But, I'm not happy with your questions. They seem to be leading to a conclusion that you wish to make. I would've asked a different set of more neutral questions.

 

[DeeDee249]

OK perhaps they can't talk about an ongoing investigation.

But, I'm not happy with your questions. They seem to be leading to a conclusion that you wish to make. I would've asked a different set of more neutral questions.

I don't see SD as asking leading questions. His seem pretty neutral to me. Perhaps in retrospect, I'd not have named the case the book was about. The way I see it, his questions themselves could be applied to any case where DNA had been tested, but because he mentioned JB by name, they refused to answer. Without that, I bet they may have given more of a satisfactory explanation of what they do.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"In 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens claimed the Ramseys were hiding behind their lawyers." How's that for the presumption of innocence? The Governor. I'm glad I live Hawaii.

I strive to please!

Let me be clear, Fang: in his deposition, he has to tell the truth, not the facts. I'm sure he believes what he said about Don Foster (I'm also sure that's what his lawyers TOLD him about it); but the facts show that his account is not quite kosher.

I also would submit that after five years, I wouldn't count on a lot of facts, even if they WERE telling the "truth." Self-hypnosis is a very powerful thing.
Today 03:25 PM

Doesn't cut it.

 

[BBB167893]

But, I'm not happy with your questions.

I can't say that surprises me.

They seem to be leading to a conclusion that you wish to make.

I asked the questions the best way I knew how.

I would've asked a different set of more neutral questions.

Such as? Maybe that's where I went wrong. Maybe I should have asked what questions people had before I went and did it. Not that it makes any difference anyway. I didn't really expect any straight answers from them.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't see SD as asking leading questions. His seem pretty neutral to me. Perhaps in retrospect, I'd not have named the case the book was about. The way I see it, his questions themselves could be applied to any case where DNA had been tested, but because he mentioned JB by name, they refused to answer. Without that, I bet they may have given more of a satisfactory explanation of what they do.

Yeah, that's probably where I went wrong.

Well, if anyone else would like to give it a shot...

 

[DeeDee249]

Yeah, that's probably where I went wrong.

Well, if anyone else would like to give it a shot...

You tried. You gave it a shot. And I thank you for that.

 

[BBB167893]

"In 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens claimed the Ramseys were hiding behind their lawyers." How's that for the presumption of innocence? The Governor. I'm glad I live Hawaii.

Well, he didn't say anything that wasn't true.

Doesn't cut it.

Sadly, I didn't think it would.

 

[MurriFlower]

Cynic: · Technology is now available to isolate male DNA from a mixture involving both male and female DNA. Y-STR testing should be done on the available DNA samples from the long johns and panties and those results compared to a buccal swab from John Ramsey.

I was thinking about the DNA and JMKs 'change' to a female. Can anyone tell me if a DNA sample would automatically detect gender? I'm thinking that it's possible that someone may have been actually a male, but dressing and living as a woman, perhaps even in the process of changing gender. So, if this were possible, would they have disregarded 'females' from testing automatically, if they were to discover 'male' DNA at a crime scene? Does CODIS offer male and female profiles separately?

 

[DeeDee249]

I was thinking about the DNA and JMKs 'change' to a female. Can anyone tell me if a DNA sample would automatically detect gender? I'm thinking that it's possible that someone may have been actually a male, but dressing and living as a woman, perhaps even in the process of changing gender. So, if this were possible, would they have disregarded 'females' from testing automatically, if they were to discover 'male' DNA at a crime scene? Does CODIS offer male and female profiles separately?

Males are always genetic males, even if they have sex-change surgery and take female hormones. JMK (and others like him) will still have a male DNA profile. Our chromosomes themselves can never be changed. Sexual reassignment adds female hormones to the body (for men who wish to become women) and male hormones to women who wish to become men. While these hormones will have an effect, the actual chromosomal make-up will not be changed. For example, men who wish to become women may simply begin dressing/living as one. If they take the nest step, hormone therapy begins, and these men will grow rudimentary breasts and experience changes in body hair. To complete the change, breast augmentation would be needed and the penis altered. Sometimes castration (removal of the testicles) is also done. But keep in mind, these men will NOT "grow" a uterus, nor can one be transplanted that will actually function. The "pregnant man" that was in the news last year was actually a woman who had been taking male hormones and living as a man. He/she kept her uterus, so she was able to become pregnant and give birth. To do this, she had to stop taking the male hormones.

 

[DeeDee249]

And no amount of female hormones will give men the ability to find things that are in plain sight but that they are unable to see. This is a function of the male species of human, and even if they become "women" they still don't have a uterus, which as all women know, functions as a tracking device.

Sorry- had to say it.

 

[MurriFlower]

Males are always genetic males, even if they have sex-change surgery and take female hormones. JMK (and others like him) will still have a male DNA profile. Our chromosomes themselves can never be changed. Sexual reassignment adds female hormones to the body (for men who wish to become women) and male hormones to women who wish to become men. While these hormones will have an effect, the actual chromosomal make-up will not be changed. For example, men who wish to become women may simply begin dressing/living as one. If they take the nest step, hormone therapy begins, and these men will grow rudimentary breasts and experience changes in body hair. To complete the change, breast augmentation would be needed and the penis altered. Sometimes castration (removal of the testicles) is also done. But keep in mind, these men will NOT "grow" a uterus, nor can one be transplanted that will actually function. The "pregnant man" that was in the news last year was actually a woman who had been taking male hormones and living as a man. He/she kept her uterus, so she was able to become pregnant and give birth. To do this, she had to stop taking the male hormones.

I'm pretty sure I understand that, my question was, would a routine DNA test reveal gender? Would CODIS be divided into male and female? Would DNA collected from both males and females, in this case, be compared to males in CODIS or would the 'females' be excluded? Just wondering if a male masquerading as a female might have excaped comparison to the male DNA found on JBRs clothes?

 

[cynic]

I'm pretty sure I understand that, my question was, would a routine DNA test reveal gender? Would CODIS be divided into male and female? Would DNA collected from both males and females, in this case, be compared to males in CODIS or would the 'females' be excluded? Just wondering if a male masquerading as a female might have excaped comparison to the male DNA found on JBRs clothes?

A DNA test easily determines the gender of an individual.
The AMEL marker will determine whether there is a XX genotype (female) or an XY genotype (male.) BTW this marker is in addition to the 13 markers that comprise a full CODIS profile.
On the graphical representation of a DNA profile, called an electropherogram, this will show up as either a single peak representing XX or two peaks representing XY.

In the partial electropherograms below, it shows the profiles of males. (The Amel marker is circled.)

 

[MurriFlower]

A DNA test easily determines the gender of an individual.
The AMEL marker will determine whether there is a XX genotype (female) or an XY genotype (male.) BTW this marker is in addition to the 13 markers that comprise a full CODIS profile.
On the graphical representation of a DNA profile, called an electropherogram, this will show up as either a single peak representing XX or two peaks representing XY.

In the partial electropherograms below, it shows the profiles of males. (The Amel marker is circled.)

cynic: Thanks, but this only answers part of my question. If for example, BPD sent off 20 samples, 10 were from 'males' and 10 from 'females'. How are these samples labelled to identify the person who provided them? If a sample came from a male but was labelled 'Mrs X', for example, would anyone at the lab notice and remark on it? Or are samples identified only by number?

 

[claudicici]

who is JMK?

 

[MurriFlower]

And no amount of female hormones will give men the ability to find things that are in plain sight but that they are unable to see. This is a function of the male species of human, and even if they become "women" they still don't have a uterus, which as all women know, functions as a tracking device.

Sorry- had to say it.

AKA "having a boy's look" -- 'where's my.........??'