Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[Ames]

...while you choose to ignore the news? What you are saying is simply false.

From CNN (not an IDI board):

"Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said."

No its NOT false...the report that the DNA matched what was found under her fingernails is false.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14441778/

"There were also DNA traces found under the child’s fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive", Grant said.

 

[Ames]

http://webdollie.tripod.com/pressrelease1.htm

Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable. Secondarily then there was DNA found on the INside of her panties which is considered commingling DNA and that means that in other words if I touch your shoulder and then YOU touch your shoulder, ummm, those are unlikely to be touched in the same place Ummm if we however umm hold hands, and then or umm if I'm you know holding your hand or sticking my finger in your mouth or whatever and THEN it gets on the inside of your clothing, that's commingling DNA. So that's a long process to seperate that. And when it WAS seperated one strain of DNA does in fact belong to JB the other strain is unidentifiable. It has been tested against Patsy John and Burke's DNA and it is DEFINITELY a no-match."

 

[DeeDee249]

http://webdollie.tripod.com/pressrelease1.htm

Thanks, Ames. I know the info about the contaminated nail clippers and the unsterile autopsy procedures has been known for quite a while, for years. Yet there is still a lot of misinformation about this case. The fingernail DNA is a good example of misinformation being taken as gospel.

 

[BBB167893]

Actually, CNN was wrong on that count. It happens, you know- they've been wrong before. There was NO usable DNA retrieved from under her fingernails.

They probably picked it up from one of their other shows, like Larry King or Nancy Grace where the Ramsey PI's John San Augustin and Ollie Gray (who didn't even know John broke the window that summer!) sold that line of garbage.

Or from CBS. They said the same thing there and it went unchallenged. Tom Bennett had to come out three days later and correct it.

I'm afraid CNN is flat-out wrong. That's par for the course for them lately. (In general I mean.)

 

[angelwngs]

http://webdollie.tripod.com/pressrelease1.htm

Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable. Secondarily then there was DNA found on the INside of her panties which is considered commingling DNA and that means that in other words if I touch your shoulder and then YOU touch your shoulder, ummm, those are unlikely to be touched in the same place Ummm if we however umm hold hands, and then or umm if I'm you know holding your hand or sticking my finger in your mouth or whatever and THEN it gets on the inside of your clothing, that's commingling DNA. So that's a long process to seperate that. And when it WAS seperated one strain of DNA does in fact belong to JB the other strain is unidentifiable. It has been tested against Patsy John and Burke's DNA and it is DEFINITELY a no-match."

Umm Hummm... like if some student painter where PR took lessons put the brush in his mouth and then it was inserted into JB...

 

[Ames]

Thanks, Ames. I know the info about the contaminated nail clippers and the unsterile autopsy procedures has been known for quite a while, for years. Yet there is still a lot of misinformation about this case. The fingernail DNA is a good example of misinformation being taken as gospel.

You are welcome!

 

[Ames]

Umm Hummm... like if some student painter where PR took lessons put the brush in his mouth and then it was inserted into JB...

Ummm Hmmmm, exactly!

 

[angelwngs]

Ummm Hmmmm, exactly!

or.........if a unknown male sneezed on the brushes in the paint tray. Possibly one of the workers from the Thanksgiving remodel..who had to use the basement for running water...Or a factory worker who made the darn brush... (Just the same as the undies...)

This is so insane for ML to have publically apologized to the R's. This DNA proves nothing.

The handle of the brush in the garrotte should have been tested for the same DNA...

If it also had the same DNA then the touch DNA and the intermingled DNA could have come from anywhere.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actually, CNN was wrong on that count. It happens, you know- they've been wrong before. There was NO usable DNA retrieved from under her fingernails.

First you say its only discussed on the boards. Then when I show it to you someplace besides the boards, you simply say "oh, well thats just wrong'.

Can I just say stuff is wrong? OK, RDI is flat wrong

RDI is not only wrong, but it has caused damage to the investigation.

 

[DeeDee249]

Sure, anyone can say stuff is wrong. But sometimes it is really wrong. No one has damaged this investigation more than the Boulder DA circa 1996.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sure, anyone can say stuff is wrong. But sometimes it is really wrong. No one has damaged this investigation more than the Boulder DA circa 1996.

You stated it was only on boards, and it wasn't. What else do you say that isn't so? How about tape and cord on a McGukins receipt? That isn't so, yet RDI touts it as if its real.

 

[Roy23]

Holdon,

Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Roy23]

Everybody is getting all bent out of shape here. I think it is time to change the focus here. They had 12 years to prosecute the Ramsey's and no matter the reason, it is not going to happen unless one thing happens. We can spin this 1000 different ways but until they match this "foreign DNA" nothing this case is stalled.

If you want justice, this is what has to happen. No matter who is right or wrong, it is impossible to convict anyone until it happens. Dave has all this circumstancial evidence that he thinks points to the credibility of the Ramsey's. Assuming that most of it is factual, I still don't think you convict until the DNA question is resolved.

It is crucial no matter what is true. Agreed?

 

[angelwngs]

Everybody is getting all bent out of shape here. I think it is time to change the focus here. They had 12 years to prosecute the Ramsey's and no matter the reason, it is not going to happen unless one thing happens. We can spin this 1000 different ways but until they match this "foreign DNA" nothing this case is stalled.

If you want justice, this is what has to happen. No matter who is right or wrong, it is impossible to convict anyone until it happens. Dave has all this circumstancial evidence that he thinks points to the credibility of the Ramsey's. Assuming that most of it is factual, I still don't think you convict until the DNA question is resolved.

It is crucial no matter what is true. Agreed?

Nope. Totally disagree.

 

[Ames]

or.........if a unknown male sneezed on the brushes in the paint tray. Possibly one of the workers from the Thanksgiving remodel..who had to use the basement for running water...Or a factory worker who made the darn brush... (Just the same as the undies...)

This is so insane for ML to have publically apologized to the R's. This DNA proves nothing.

The handle of the brush in the garrotte should have been tested for the same DNA...

If it also had the same DNA then the touch DNA and the intermingled DNA could have come from anywhere.

Right. That DNA could have came from a variety of places. JB's blood mixed with whoever the DNA belonged to. Factory worker, someone at the party that helped her go to the bathroom, it doesn't necessarily have to be the killer's DNA, since Touch DNA cannot tell us WHEN it was placed there.

 

[Ames]

First you say its only discussed on the boards. Then when I show it to you someplace besides the boards, you simply say "oh, well thats just wrong'.

Can I just say stuff is wrong? OK, RDI is flat wrong

RDI is not only wrong, but it has caused damage to the investigation.

Holdon, no you are wrong about the DNA under the nails? Did you NOT read my posts at the beginning of this page? MSNBC reported that the DNA was DEGRADED and the tests were INCLUSIVE.....see below statement.

"There were also DNA traces found under the child’s fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive", Grant said."

---------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable. Secondarily then there was DNA found on the INside of her panties which is considered commingling DNA and that means that in other words if I touch your shoulder and then YOU touch your shoulder, ummm, those are unlikely to be touched in the same place Ummm if we however umm hold hands, and then or umm if I'm you know holding your hand or sticking my finger in your mouth or whatever and THEN it gets on the inside of your clothing, that's commingling DNA. So that's a long process to seperate that. And when it WAS seperated one strain of DNA does in fact belong to JB the other strain is unidentifiable. It has been tested against Patsy John and Burke's DNA and it is DEFINITELY a no-match."



Not only did they report it, but PAM, JB's own aunt said the same thing. Are you calling HER a liar?? I do believe that SHE would know better than anyone.

 

[Roy23]

Nope. Totally disagree.

Why? I mean at minimum it creates reasonable doubt. What is your take on this Dave?

This case is officially stalled for a variety of reasons.

 

[Ames]

The DNA under JB's nails was degraded and unusable.

 

[UKGuy]

Everybody is getting all bent out of shape here. I think it is time to change the focus here. They had 12 years to prosecute the Ramsey's and no matter the reason, it is not going to happen unless one thing happens. We can spin this 1000 different ways but until they match this "foreign DNA" nothing this case is stalled.

If you want justice, this is what has to happen. No matter who is right or wrong, it is impossible to convict anyone until it happens. Dave has all this circumstancial evidence that he thinks points to the credibility of the Ramsey's. Assuming that most of it is factual, I still don't think you convict until the DNA question is resolved.

It is crucial no matter what is true. Agreed?

Roy23,

It is crucial no matter what is true. Agreed?

Only if you can link it to an intruder. Also to avoid confusion we should be told if Patsy's touch dna is on the longjohns, or even John's? We need to know this so we can take the foreign touch dna seriously. Also is there foreign touch dna on the waistband of the size-12's, is John's touch dna to be found there? Without these questions being answered, the foreign touch dna, does not mean much, not unless you wish to use it to exonerate the Ramsey's?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Sure, anyone can say stuff is wrong. But sometimes it is really wrong. No one has damaged this investigation more than the Boulder DA circa 1996.

Amen to that!