DNA Revisited

[madeleine]

The DNA found contained only 10 of 13 markers used for identification and was not from blood or semen.

says G.McCrary

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/16.html

finally a source

 

[madeleine]

there is a poster on another forum who keeps on ranting and ranting about the alledged dna found under JB's fingernails that matches the DNA found in the panties and on the longjohns.
does ANYONE know of a report that confirms this?
i only heard it from the R's lawyers,not even ML mentions something like this.
pls,IDI's,show me a real source for this.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya madeleine.

uhm, if EM is a valid source:


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nllcQW9QzC0&feature=autoplay&list=ULJZ5-eOxXFVs&index=2&playnext=7[/ame]
Erin Moriarty on Court TV
December 18, 2004
(1:05)
Q: Erin, dna profile from where?
Where did this mystery dna come from?
EM: Well, there are two blood spots on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear
that she was wearing the night she was murdered.
And, originally the police only had one blood spot tested
and there was not enough dna.
When they finally went, looked at the other blood spot,
there was enough to do PCR and according to the Denver Police Crime Lab,
they feel very confident there was no contamination
and that they do infact have a complete dna profile for the person who left that dna.
Now why they beleive it's the killer is because that dna,
it matches the two blood spots, the same dna in both, and nowhere else.
So it's not like somebody could, whoever packed the underwear, could sneeze on it,
it's nowhere else. Plus, while there isn't the complete dna profile under her fingernail,
many of the markers they found under her fingernails match that dna in the blood spot.
So, and I, from my sources within this case, they're really pretty confident that the dna
is that of the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. And I should
point out, it does not match anyone in the Ramsey family.

 

[madeleine]

it matches the two bloodspots? :waitasec:

thanks Tad and yep I don't consider her a valid source

 

[madeleine]

once they say it was JB's dna they found under her nails because she tried to remove the ligature while she was strangled.
then they say she fought the intruder and that's how his dna got under her nails.
but ML never mentioned it and I BET she would have if this would have been FACT or usable in court.
but all this goes down the toilet anyway since we know that the coroner didn't use the proper clipings,so....end of story anyway


what if the DNA belongs to another dead patient Meyer touched before JB's autopsy?he's not known as Mr.Perfect so it's not impossible.he touched her clothing,didn't he.
wouldn't that be just................i would say funny,but............

 

[DeeDee249]

once they say it was JB's dna they found under her nails because she tried to remove the ligature while she was strangled.
then they say she fought the intruder and that's how his dna got under her nails.
but ML never mentioned it and I BET she would have if this would have been FACT or usable in court.
but all this goes down the toilet anyway since we know that the coroner didn't use the proper clipings,so....end of story anyway


what if the DNA belongs to another dead patient Meyer touched before JB's autopsy?he's not known as Mr.Perfect so it's not impossible.he touched her clothing,didn't he.
wouldn't that be just................i would say funny,but............

NONE of JB's skin, blood or tissue was found under her fingernails. There were NO scratches on JB's neck. She was not awake when she was garroted; she did not struggle against it.
We ALL have DNA belonging to other people under our nails, as well as our own. And yes, even official sources stated the fingernail DNA was useless because of Mayer's contamination. He had used the same clippers on OTHER corpses. NONE of those corpses was tested against that DNA. ALL of the fingernail DNA was degraded (old). The panty DNA was not. They do not have the same source.
Mayer DID touch her clothing, he removed it. And I'd say it is almost certain that he pulled the longjohns and panties down by the waistband.

 

[wonderllama]

I think more to the point DeeDee....Christmas Day you're going to be touching A LOT of stuff as a kid and if she got home at 10pm, she won't have had a wash, so the entire Christmas Day journey, 24 hours of unwrapping, playing with presents, eating, drinking and visiting other houses....well, that's a lot of potentials under those nails.

 

[Agatha_C]

Big question here...

Isn't the TDNA irrelevant to the case being that it wasnt collected at the scene or from the body of the victim. I mean it was collected at the lab years later how could it even be considered serious evidence?

 

[DeeDee249]

The coroner should have been wearing gloves when e touched her, but he would have certainly touched other things while wearing them. We KNOW he used unsterile clippers and did not follow protocol when clipping the nails, he was thought to have used the same clippers on other bodies before using them on JB. It's the same for the gloves. He may have not even used a fresh pair before handling JB's body, especially before dissection, when he removed her clothing.

 

[cynic]

Big question here...

Isn't the TDNA irrelevant to the case being that it wasnt collected at the scene or from the body of the victim. I mean it was collected at the lab years later how could it even be considered serious evidence?

You can guarantee that a good attorney would have great time with the DNA in this case.

You might find this interesting, BTW.

COLORADO CORONERS ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER
SUMMER 2007
Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA, there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf

 

[Agatha_C]

You can guarantee that a good attorney would have great time with the DNA in this case.

You might find this interesting, BTW.

COLORADO CORONERS ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER
SUMMER 2007
Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA, there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf

This was amazing Cynic, thank you.

 

[Agatha_C]

7. How do people transfer/deposit skin cell DNA?

Primary and Secondary Transfer

(Skin cells continually flake off at rate of ~35,000 dead skin cells per minute)

SHEDDER INDEX
A group of 29 people were tested for their ability to deposit their DNA profile onto touched objects. It was found that a typical good shedder leaves a complete profile on the surface of a plastic tube after contact of only 10 seconds, whereas at the other end of the scale a poor shedder will leave only a few alleles, possibly with several loci dropping out completely.

PRIMARY TRANSFER
Work was carried out to determine whether DNA profiles could be obtained from clothing; specifically, plain white T-shirts. After 8 hours wear, more of the wearer’s DNA was recovered from the front of the Tshirt than the back. Targeting the neck area maximized the chance of obtaining a useful result. In a series of simulated assaults, where one person grabbed the shoulder of another for a period of 30 seconds, mixed profiles were obtained from the grabbed area of the T-shirts. The “assailant” always contributed the major component to this mixture, regardless of his/her shedder type.

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. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.

PERSISTENCE
Many factors may affect the persistence of low level DNA; time, temperature, humidity, etc. While it is unreasonable to test every combination of variables, some generic experiments have been undertaken and certain scenarios addressed. A time-study of the persistence of DNA is currently underway, where touched items have been stored at room temperature and tested to find out how much DNA can be recovered after certain periods of time. full profiles were still recovered from surfaces touched by a good shedder even after 4 months, whereas a marked decrease in the recovery of the poor shedder’s DNA was observed.
An exchange of identical wrist-watches between certain shedder types was carried out to ascertain the period of time needed for the original wearer’s DNA profile to be replaced by that of the new wearer. Generally we found that a good shedder completely replaced the original wearer’s profile in 2-3 weeks, and after only a few days had become the major component of a mixture. An example of this is shown in In contrast, a poor shedder typically took around 2 weeks just to comprise the major component.
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf

We have shown that there is a difference between individuals in their tendency to deposit DNA on an item when it is touched. While a good DNA shedder may leave behind a full DNA profile immediately after hand washing, poor DNA shedders may only do so when their hands have not been washed for a period of 6 h. We have also demonstrated that transfer of DNA from one individual (A) to another (B) and subsequently to an object is possible under specific laboratory conditions using the AMPFISTR®SGM Plus™ multiplex at both 28 and 34 PCR cycles. This is a form of secondary transfer. If a 30 min or 1 h delay was introduced before contact of individual B with the object then at 34 cycles a mixture of profiles from both individuals was recovered. We have also determined that the quantity and quality of DNA profiles recovered is dependent upon the particular individuals involved in the transfer process. The findings reported here are preliminary and further investigations are underway in order to further add to understanding of the issues of DNA transfer and persistence.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6W-46PBY9D-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52d90b1ae7d70c8cc6b96f57dc407596

Objects handled by many individuals all produced 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/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

Secondary transfer refers to the fact that, through physical contact with other people, individuals can inadvertently carry and deposit other people’s DNA onto objects of evidence. For example, two people shaking hands will transfer their own DNA to each others’ hands. If each then goes on to touch another object such as a coffee mug, baseball bat, knife etc., they could transfer the other’s skin cells to the object. If that object is a murder weapon, the identification of DNA through LCN could prove problematic and misleading.
• Variable shedding refers to the extent to which different people shed their skin cells in different quantities under different circumstances. Some people are more likely than others to leave behind their DNA in the form of skin cells. Through research at the FSS, it has been found that there are, for example, “heavy shedders,” “medium shedders,” and “light shedders.” Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA or strongest profile.
• The amount of DNA deposited can also be affected by certain actions taken by the individual. Washing of one’s hands will, for a period of time, decrease the amount of skin cells a person deposits on other objects. Additionally, the amount of perspiration exerted at the time the object is being held may also affect the amount of skin cells that are deposited. Both of these scenarios could adversely affect results upon LCN-DNA analysis.
• Given the nature of variable shedding and secondary transfer, the risk of obtaining a mixture is increased when applying a technology with increased sensitivity such as LCN. It is impossible to amplify the “right” DNA profile because all of the DNA that is contained in a biological evidence sample will be amplified.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf

“It has also been demonstrated that DNA containing material can be deposited onto surfaces that without physical contact being made. In 2003, Rutty carried out a series of experiments to determine the extent to which a crime scene could be contaminated by crime scene investigators (Rutty et al. 2003). A series of experiments were carried out to investigate the level of DNA deposition after 15 minutes of silence or talking, with and without physical activity. The level of DNA deposition after 10 seconds coughing was also tested. The results of these experiments showed that high levels of DNA could be detected after 15 minutes of talking, whilst kneeling, even when a face mask was worn. It was hypothesized that the detected DNA could have arisen from orally projected saliva particles or could be due to the sloughing of epithelial cells around the area that the face mask was in contact with the face (Rutty et al. 2003). In order to distinguish the contribution of orally projected biological material from shed epithelial cells a second set of experiments were conducted by Rutty‟s group (Port et al. 2006). These follow-up experiments greatly simplified the model used in Rutty‟s original work to investigate orally projected biological material only. The results of these experiments showed that DNA-containing biological material could be detected up to 184cm (72 inches) away from the donor and a full DNA profile could be detected in the area immediately in front of the donor after only 30 seconds of talking (Port et al. 2006).”
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4529/1/PhD%20Thesis%20EAMG%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf

Secondary Transfer and Scene Technicians
The body of an adolescent female was found on a couch in her home where she lived with her mother and younger brother. She was wearing only a shirt and bra at the time of discovery. She was determined to have died of "asphyxia secondary to manual strangulation." She had a history of sexual abuse, suggested by the absence of her hymen and numerous anal scars, as well as a history of promiscuity. The DNA of one of her mother's lovers was found on her perineum, in the form of sperm.
Given the location and circumstances of the crime, the precise conditions of this exchange could not be reliably established. One possibility is that the suspect was engaged in some form of sexual activity with the victim, and that sperm transferred to her perineum as a result. However, the suspect and the victim's mother had sexual relations in the mother's bed, where the victim had been playing previously with her brother. There were also reports that the suspect and the victim's mother may have had sexual relations on the couch, were the victim would have been sitting. Additionally, a review of the crime scene video shows several evidence technicians moving evidence around on the couch and other locations, and then touching the victim's body in multiple locations, examining her body as it is being photographed, with and without gloves.

Given these circumstances, and the victim's history, the following are potential evidence transfer relationships in this case:
From the suspect to the victim during a forced sexual assault;
From the suspect to the victim during a consensual (but unlawful) sexual encounter;
From the couch to the victim's perineum;
From the mother's bed to the victim's perineum;
From the scene technician's fingers to the victim's perineum
http://www.profiling.org/journal/vol1_no1/jbp_ed_january2000_1-1.html

Secondary and Tertiary Transfer

Transfer of DNA is seen with variable degrees of efficiency in each of the two types of transfer experiments conducted. In most cases the transferred DNA was a lower concentration than the DNA of the individual to whom it was transferred, however, this was not observed in all instances.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf

I believe that secondary transfer of foreign DNA may account for the DNA found on the panties and long johns. The transfer may have been a result of contact with these articles of clothing by JBR herself, or perhaps by JR and/or PR as well. Another possibility may also be transfer via a DNA-laden wash cloth or towel that may have been previously used by someone untested/cleared by LE.
These are only some of the possibilities, and I don’t dismiss that perhaps the long johns and panties may have been contaminated at some point after they were collected and taken into evidence. (Especially in light of the way the fingernails were handled.)
The theory that I presently believe is the most likely explanation of the DNA evidence in this case is below.

8. The Mixture Theory:

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery”)
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578

I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all. (At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.
To illustrate, consider the following very simplified 5 marker profile:
JonBenet (5,12), (8,9), (3,3), (6,4), (9,12)
Patsy (5,8), (7,9), (4,3), (6,11), (9,5)
John (3,12), (8,10), (3,6), (8,4), (7,12)

(Note that because I am using JBR’s parents in the example, JBR is receiving one allele from JR and PR at every marker)

The mixed profile from this example found in the bloodstain would be:
(3,5,8,12), (7,8,9,10), (3,4,6), (4,6,8,11), (5,7,9,12)

You then remove the victim profile and are left with the following alleles to explain:
(3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)

The lab is saying that there are two possibilities:
There is an unidentified male with the following profile responsible for DNA found in the blood stain: (3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)
Or, it was from a mixture involving family members.
Clearly it appears that the DA chose to believe that it was an intruder rather than a Ramsey family member.
The following is one possible explanation of how the mixture happened:
John Ramsey breaks a paint brush previously used by Patsy and containing her DNA. The portion of handle now containing both his and Patsy’s DNA (skin cells) is inserted into JBR’s vagina causing a small amount of bleeding. The size 12 panties are put on, and JBR’s blood mixed with JR’s and PR’s DNA is deposited. JR pulls up the long johns which PR admittedly handled earlier and once again a mixture of their DNA is left behind.
The Bode lab simply found and declared a match to the same mixed profile found in the panty underwear sample.

Just to be clear, some may be under the impression that touch DNA from the long johns is the crucial DNA in this case. That is not true. The partial profile in CODIS from the DNA in the panties is the foundation. All other DNA will continue to be compared against that partial profile.
If that profile is wrong because it is merely a blend of alleles from Ramsey family members (probably just PR and JR), then it completely invalidates the “intruder” theory, at least insofar as support from DNA tested to date is concerned.

9. Conclusions:

· This is not a DNA case.

· Secondary transfer or a DNA mixture may have led to an imaginary “intruder” profile.

· Efforts should be made to clarify the DNA mixture in the panties as that may have caused a false entry to have been uploaded into the CODIS database.

· 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.

· Other items of evidence that would be difficult to explain by an intruder theory should also be tested using Touch DNA analysis. These items should include at least the ligature and paint brush handle.

· At the very least, the current DA should repeal the Ramsey exoneration and apologize to the public that someone as utterly incompetent as Mary Lacy was ever allowed to hold a position of authority whereby she was able misdirect an important investigation for so long.

· The science of DNA profiling is sound.
But, not all of DNA profiling is science.

10. Closing Argument:

“I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.” - Wendy Murphy

Cynic,

First let me start be asking if you are alright? No word from you in a while and Im starting to worry. I wouldnt blame you if you needed a break. Right now, I need a drink.... Anyway...

I need to know if I can borrow some of this post and the ones that started this thread. I warn you, its a dark and murky place I go...LOL.... But I have some folks that need schooling. I would of course give you credit as well as this link.. If you would rather I didnt, I will completely understand...

Thanks... Hoping you are sipping drinks with umbrellas and soaking up the sun....

 

[smurf86]

I was just about to ask the same thing, and I'm sure cynic lurks over at CS too

 

[SunnieRN]

You know, in revisiting this thread and re-reading, it is truly scary to think about touch DNA implications. I think about my career, for example. I am a 'good shedder' and I touch people for 13 hours at work. Also thousands of surfaces. Compound that by being out in the public and there is a huge amount of my DNA everywhere. :crazy:

 

[Agatha_C]

You know, in revisiting this thread and re-reading, it is truly scary to think about touch DNA implications. I think about my career, for example. I am a 'good shedder' and I touch people for 13 hours at work. Also thousands of surfaces. Compound that by being out in the public and there is a huge amount of my DNA everywhere. :crazy:

Gives you a whole new perspective doesnt it Sunnie Girl? I have I told you lately, that I think you rock. Shed on my friend, just dont shed on the wrong person...LOL....

 

[Agatha_C]

I was just about to ask the same thing, and I'm sure cynic lurks over at CS too

Great minds think alike Smurf!

 

[BBB167893]

I was just about to ask the same thing, and I'm sure cynic lurks over at CS too

He does! I asked him to join us, smurf, but he said no. And given his reasons, I don't blame him!

 

[BBB167893]

You know, in revisiting this thread and re-reading, it is truly scary to think about touch DNA implications. I think about my career, for example. I am a 'good shedder' and I touch people for 13 hours at work. Also thousands of surfaces. Compound that by being out in the public and there is a huge amount of my DNA everywhere. :crazy:

You're not the only one, Sunnie. We SHOULD be afraid of this, especially when it's in the hands of someone as ignorant about forensics as the Boulder DA!

 

[BBB167893]

Great minds think alike Smurf!

The dark side is growing in strength...

 

[cynic]

Cynic,

First let me start be asking if you are alright? No word from you in a while and Im starting to worry. I wouldnt blame you if you needed a break. Right now, I need a drink.... Anyway...

Thanks AC, well, 2 weeks of my absence was due to a vacation, but primarily I’ve been extremely busy and, unfortunately, probably will continue to be for another few months.
I have been trying to keep up with reading new posts here and at FFJ but I don’t have much time for getting into posting and especially posts that would require a lot of follow-up.
I noticed that you were gone for a while as well, but assumed it was Anthony case related, not sure why Becky hasn’t been around.

I need to know if I can borrow some of this post and the ones that started this thread. I warn you, its a dark and murky place I go...LOL.... But I have some folks that need schooling. I would of course give you credit as well as this link.. If you would rather I didnt, I will completely understand...

Thanks... Hoping you are sipping drinks with umbrellas and soaking up the sun....

What’s mine is yours, with the exception of a few things; I’ll have my lawyer contact your people to iron out the details.
Seriously though, take whatever you like from any of my posts anywhere and good luck; I’m familiar with who you are trying to “school,” and I hope you have the time, patience, and appropriate medication to deal with the situation.