Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Roy23]

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

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.

It is so so so good to see you here.

 

[Roy23]

The GJ seemed to believe JB was murdered, in the 1st degree. No one was indicted on that charge. It would have been difficult to prosecute the Rs as accessories to a murder in which a suspected murderer was not identified. If the GJ believed there was an inkling of evidence that the Rs murdered JonBenet, or even if they believed her death may have been an accident, the indictments issued would be QUITE different.

:tyou:

 

[Mama2JML]

It is so so so good to see you here.

Likewise, Roy. I was hoping you'd be back.

 

[Roy23]

:fireworks:

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/

:fireworks:

 

[BBB167893]

Would you two like to be alone? :facepalm:

 

[Landonsmom02]

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.

BBM

This is irrelevant because the ME used unsanitary clippers on JBR. He used the same ones on her that he used on other people who were in the morgue. He was supposed to use new,steralized clippers on each DB.........

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM

This is irrelevant because the ME used unsanitary clippers on JBR. He used the same ones on her that he used on other people who were in the morgue. He was supposed to use new,steralized clippers on each DB.........

This is a myth. Even Kolar even asserts the DNA profiles isolated from JonBenet's fingernail clippings were not the result of contamination. If your proposal was true, then you must wonder why Dr. Meyer decided to use two sets of clippers for JonBenet's autopsy? He would have had to change his protocol mid-exam, according to the 1997 DNA results. Two separate, yet consistent, DNA profiles were isolated; one from the left hand & another from the right hand. A third consistent profile was obtained from a bloodstain in 1997.

Regardless, the 1997 DNA results have no weight on the 2003 & 2008 findings. The 2003 profile was found w/in a drop of JonBenet's blood in her panties through STR analysis & in 2008 (STR, again) a profile was obtained via TDNA collection from her long johns.

 

[Mama2JML]

Would you two like to be alone? :facepalm:

:loveyou: :loveyou: :loveyou:

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

DNA is DNA. "Touch" refers to the collection method.

Evidentiary DNA doesn't make or break this case. Yet. It does require consideration, and should this case ever see a courtroom, it will require a damn good explanation.

 

[Mama2JML]

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

...but it lessens the likelihood.

I meant where her blood was.
...
What's that supposed to mean?

If the presence of amylase was detected during initial DNA testing, as Kolar suggested, then the presence of saliva is a STRONG possibility. Blood contains more sources of human DNA than saliva.

 

[UKGuy]

...but it lessens the likelihood.
If the presence of amylase was detected during initial DNA testing, as Kolar suggested, then the presence of saliva is a STRONG possibility. Blood contains more sources of human DNA than saliva.

Mama2JML,
If amylase was detected. Where was it detected and who documented this?

Also was there amylase found anywhere else on JonBenet's person?

Other evidentiary samples taken from JonBenet's JonBenet's clothing match some of the dna markers in her underwear sample.

Presumably they were all not amylase samples?


Are saliva swabs used when taking dna samples?


.

 

[BBB167893]

:loveyou: :loveyou: :loveyou:

I'll take that as a "yes!" Suits me, anyway. :truce:

 

[Roy23]

I'll take that as a "yes!" Suits me, anyway. :truce:

LOL! She wouldn't be able to throw her trash off the back porch without hitting me in the face with it if we weren't both married with kids. hehehehe. No mama2jml is supermom and smart too. <modsnip>

:toastred:

 

[BBB167893]

LOL! She wouldn't be able to throw her trash off the back porch without hitting me in the face with it if we weren't both married with kids. hehehehe. No mama2jml is supermom and smart too. <modsnip>

:toastred:

Roy, I was all set to leave you guys be. Why do you want to drag me back in?

While you ponder an answer to that question, let me do a quick tally:

1) You told me there was no indictment. I said there was. Turns out I was right.

2) You said my book would never be published. I said it would be. The final draft was accepted for block printing this morning.

I'm 2 for 2!

 

[Roy23]

Roy, I was all set to leave you guys be. Why do you want to drag me back in?

Just to tell you Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[BBB167893]

Just to tell you Happy Thanksgiving!

I never can stay angry with you for too long!

Happy Thanksgiving, pilgrim. :floorlaugh: (The ONE time that little epithet is appropriate!)

 

[Roy23]

Roy, I was all set to leave you guys be. Why do you want to drag me back in?

While you ponder an answer to that question, let me do a quick tally:

1) You told me there was no indictment. I said there was. Turns out I was right.

2) You said my book would never be published. I said it would be. The final draft was accepted for block printing this morning.

I'm 2 for 2!

Well the indictment part is a little weak quite frankly but yeah okay. Now on your book I still don't believe it until it is out in a store or somewhere. But congrats I guess. I will own up to just about anything if I am wrong. I can promise you that.

 

[Roy23]

I never can stay angry with you for too long!

Happy Thanksgiving, pilgrim. :floorlaugh: (The ONE time that little epithet is appropriate!)

Yup it is. Happy Turkey!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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

I understand about TDNA, The problem is RDI wants to ignore it when it is not ignorable. IT is there and it is not the R's. IT is that simple.

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
If amylase was detected. Where was it detected and who documented this?

It was detected in 2003, when the bloodstain was analyzed that resulted in a 10 marker profile, I believe. This info came from Kolar's book, but I'm traveling and I don't have the book with me.

Also was there amylase found anywhere else on JonBenet's person?

None of which I am aware.

Other evidentiary samples taken from JonBenet's JonBenet's clothing match some of the dna markers in her underwear sample.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking...

Presumably they were all not amylase samples?

Probably not. IMO.

Are saliva swabs used when taking dna samples?

When collecting a known person's DNA for analysis?... I'm not sure I understand your question, again. I'm sorry.