Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[BBB167893]

Then feel free to use the term 'consistent'. Each locus from the 2003 profile was matched to each corresponding locus in the 2008 profile, thus, the profiles were consistent.

Source: http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/

Unfortunately, Mama2JML, just about ANY DNA profile would be consistent with another one that was incomplete enough. Human DNA is about 99% identical across the world.

 

[borndem]

One thing I didn't realize til reading Kolar's book was that the dna was on the inside waistband of the longjohns. He says nothing about the outside, but like it rubbed off from the panty waist onto the inner waist of the pj bottoms. It was also in the binding of the panties leg and waist. "In" the binding, to me, means during construction and sewing.

Excellent point, txsvicki! I am just starting Kolar's book, so I am all up in "it" again! To wit:

Before I got back into WS just now, I went shopping. As I was taking an outfit for my gdaughter out of the bag, I wondered as I looked at it, how many pieces (bad word, but I'm no geneticist) of DNA could be found on that outfit: someone handling the bolts of material, the buttons, the thread, the elastic, the ribbon, etc., etc., and then the seamstress(es) who sewed the outfit, the one who folded and put it on the little (also handled by someone) hanger, the one who packed it in a shipping box, the ones in the mail rooms, the ones in the retail receiving room who handled & priced it, the retailers who put it on display, the shoppers who handled & looked at it, myself and the person who rang up and bagged the sold item.

Just think about it.... We're su-rrounded by DNA... It's everywhere, it's everywhere!!!!

 

[BBB167893]

But not blood. Not blood.

That's Arnie M's point, Scarlett. The DNA in JBR's underwear was NOT blood. The blood was JBR's. Henry Lee did that experiment to show how it was likely that JB bled onto DNA that was already there.

 

[BBB167893]

The genetic material commingled with JonBenet's blood, in her panties, wasn't blood & it wasn't semen. The source is unknown, although many believe it was saliva. AND, Kolar mentioned (in FF) that when initial testing was conducted amylase was thought to be present. My bet is on saliva. ...of the perp, not a factory worker on a different continent.

Your interpretation of whose saliva it was (IF it was) aside, Mama2JML, on behalf of my sanity, I thank you profusely!

 

[Mama2JML]

If it was of a perp, how would there be so little tDNA, instead of more? Even if we don't know who it matches, wouldn't there be more DNA on her or her clothing? She wasn't bathed post-mortem by the perp, so how is so little DNA present if it's from someone who murdered her?

Source, location, & technology:

There was no semen, nor blood, found to be present.

In 1997, DNA technology was in its infancy. Still is, but obviously not to the same degree. Foreign DNA was isolated from a drop of JonBenet's blood, in her panties, and from both hands' fingernail clippings. In 2001, the panties were analyzed using STR technology resulting in a 1-2 marker foreign profile. Then, in 2003, another bloodstain was analyzed, resulting in a 10 marker, foreign male DNA profile.

The hands & fingernails, especially of children, are bacterial/fungal/etc. breeding grounds. These organisms thrive on genetic material. As well, the source of the DNA profile isolated from the bloodstains could be saliva, as indicated by some investigators (including Kolar). Saliva contains enzymes that breakdown, most organic, digestible materials like DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

Here is how simple it is for me. IT is DNA that does not match the R's. In any other case DNA is king. WE use it to exonerate and convict. In this case, DNA that is not biased, Just fact and points away from the R's is bent and stretched as to not mean anything so RDI theorist can sell books.

DNA is not "king" in "any" other case, Scarlett. Henry Lee himself said that it's irrelevant in half the cases it's found, and that was BEFORE Touch DNA. I won't even touch that part about selling books, because then we'd BOTH get suspended!

Could be saliva, What I know is that it was a good source of DNA.

Oh, yeah, it was so good that it was degraded so badly they had to amplify it just to get 9-1/2 markers, a fair sight short of 13. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

It matches the touch DNA.

No partial DNA profile could be called a match by anyone who knows what they're doing.

That in any other case would be a slam dunk to prove that the perp was there.

I sure hope not! That's grounds for an appeal if I've ever heard one!

 

[BBB167893]

Not necessarily. Maybe he wore gloves except when he was assaulting her. But she was touched and this perp left DNA. In more than one place.

But WHY would he do that?

 

[BBB167893]

Source, location, & technology:

There was no semen, nor blood, found to be present.

In 1997, DNA technology was in its infancy. Still is, but obviously not to the same degree. Foreign DNA was isolated from a drop of JonBenet's blood, in her panties, and from both hands' fingernail clippings. In 2001, the panties were analyzed using STR technology resulting in a 1-2 marker foreign profile. Then, in 2003, another bloodstain was analyzed, resulting in a 10 marker, foreign male DNA profile.

The hands & fingernails, especially of children, are bacterial/fungal/etc. breeding grounds. These organisms thrive on genetic material. As well, the source of the DNA profile isolated from the bloodstains could be saliva, as indicated by some investigators (including Kolar). Saliva contains enzymes that breakdown, most organic, digestible materials like DNA.

Thanks again, Mama2JML. But I would make two points:

1) Kolar didn't seem to be indicating that it was saliva, merely that they thought it might have been early on.

2) If the degraded condition of the DNA was due to amylase breakdown, why was JB's own DNA in perfect condition? Can't be both, can it?

 

[Mama2JML]

Thanks again, Mama2JML. But I would make two points:

1) Kolar didn't seem to be indicating that it was saliva, merely that they thought it might have been early on.

...and, saliva could very well be the source.

2) If the degraded condition of the DNA was due to amylase breakdown, why was JB's own DNA in perfect condition? Can't be both, can it?

Perfect condition? There was that unknown female profile, from which JB could not be excluded as a source, according to Kolar.

Yes, it can be both. Blood contains more sources of human DNA than saliva. It's also logical to assume there was more blood present in the mixture than there was saliva, but we don't have to make this conjecture if you'd rather not.

 

[BBB167893]

...and, saliva could very well be the source.

Fair enough. Even so, that still doesn't rule out the factory theory.

Perfect condition? There was that unknown female profile, from which JB could not be excluded as a source, according to Kolar.

I meant where her blood was.

Yes, it can be both. Blood contains more sources of human DNA than saliva. It's also logical to assume there was more blood present in the mixture than there was saliva, but we don't have to make this conjecture if you'd rather not.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Fair enough. Even so, that still doesn't rule out the factory theory.



I meant where her blood was.



What's that supposed to mean?

Sure it does. The DNA matches 2 articles of clothing. That excludes a factory worker.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sure it does. The DNA matches 2 articles of clothing. That excludes a factory worker.

Considering secondary transfer it most certainly rules nothing out. Those two items were indeed in contact with one another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[momof4ws]

Where are you going with this Scarlett?????? Have you ever worked in a factory? MORE THAN ONE PERSON touches an item to be packaged and shipped. Touch DNA is different than DNA. It is extremely easy to transfer Touch DNA to ANYTHING! I'm sure my touch DNA is on many items I touch at Kroger or Target or any other store. This touch DNA you keep referring to is minute compared to every other aspect of this murder. Can you please tell me why you feel that the touch DNA found on JBR's underwear outweighs ALL OTHER RELEVANT and POWERFUL details pointing to the Ramseys? Please enlighten me.

 

[Mama2JML]

Here is how simple it is for me. IT is DNA that does not match the R's. In any other case DNA is king. WE use it to exonerate and convict. In this case, DNA that is not biased, Just fact and points away from the R's is bent and stretched as to not mean anything so RDI theorist can sell books.

Could be saliva, What I know is that it was a good source of DNA. It matches the touch DNA. That in any other case would be a slam dunk to prove that the perp was there. In this case this does not match the R's.

They didn't do it.

Agreed.

 

[BBB167893]

Considering secondary transfer it most certainly rules nothing out. Those two items were indeed in contact with one another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

You beat me to it, Linda.

 

[tezi]

Here is how simple it is for me. IT is DNA that does not match the R's. In any other case DNA is king. WE use it to exonerate and convict. In this case, DNA that is not biased, Just fact and points away from the R's is bent and stretched as to not mean anything so RDI theorist can sell books.

Could be saliva, What I know is that it was a good source of DNA. It matches the touch DNA. That in any other case would be a slam dunk to prove that the perp was there. In this case this does not match the R's.

They didn't do it.

BBM: That is YOUR opinion. It is not supported by the totality of the evidence.

Please put JMO or something similar on your posts. It is very confusing to newbies reading here.

JMO

 

[Mama2JML]

What does BBM mean?

 

[Tawny]

What does BBM mean?

Bolded By Me

 

[bettybaby00]

Whew! Finally had the chance to listen to a recent broadcast of Tricia's show with DNA expert Dr. Dan Krane.

It's a must for all who need to get a better understanding of the many aspects of DNA, including touch DNA, transfer, degraded DNA, etc., etc. this case is used in many of the explanations by dr. Krane.

Perhaps most significant is the last 10 minutes or so. He states pretty emphatically that the "mixed DNA sample" found on JRB should never have been relied upon as "proof" by Mary lacy to exonerate the Ramsey's.

Please listen to the broadcast as we all can benefit from learning about this subject matter and all it's complexities, especially the misperception that
DNA = case closed!!!!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern

 

[tezi]

Whew! Finally had the chance to listen to a recent broadcast of Tricia's show with DNA expert Dr. Dan Krane.

It's a must for all who need to get a better understanding of the many aspects of DNA, including touch DNA, transfer, degraded DNA, etc., etc. this case is used in many of the explanations by dr. Krane.

Perhaps most significant is the last 10 minutes or so. He states pretty emphatically that the "mixed DNA sample" found on JRB should never have been relied upon as "proof" by Mary lacy to exonerate the Ramsey's.

Please listen to the broadcast as we all can benefit from learning about this subject matter and all it's complexities, especially the misperception that
DNA = case closed!!!!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern

That broadcast was excellent! I learned so much I didn't know. Dr. Krane made everything so easy to understand.

If people would just listen to that, they would understand the whole tDNA thing.

It's very frustrating to people who understand how things worked in Boulder during Hunter's and Lacy's terms as DA to keep going over this and over this....

JMO