Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[Solace]

LI_Mom - I would think that as well. I was wondering what the threshold is for the people on this board who equate what was found with = Ramseys innocent. What would it take for it not to prove that in their minds. I'd be interested in, say, Jayce having a theory of what happened in detail. Because once one tries to piece the puzzles together via intruder theory it becomes muddled very quickly whereas the pieces fit when taken the R.s as the starting point.
I read an investigators report (hired by the R.s, I think) that came up with some 'definitive' intruder theory....ransom note was written first & left on back stairs (but, of course!) and when Jonbenet struggled as he tried to get her through the window (although no signs of any activity of any kind at said window) he was strangling her with the garrote ('cause it's easier to get a six-year old through a tiny window if she's got a garrote on, can't recall if she's supposed to be 'restrained' at this point, at any rate, she didn't claw at her neck or him, but, I digress) & then, in anger/frustration, etc. whacks her over the head. Now, I guess she screamed at some point & this master-mind doesn't leave the scene...nope, he 'stages' a 'scene' - but, my point (this is what happens to me whenever I do the 'intruder' scenario in my head, I forget 'the point' in the morass) is: the motive for striking her on the head was frustration with getting her out the window - well, if she's dead = no struggle, so why didn't he take her? If it's cause, aw, shucks, now he can't get his big fat 118,000, so, no kidnapping, leave her behind....oh puhleeze! I don't think anyone expected her to actually be ransomed.

By the way - when did John want to fly out (to Atlanta?) - but, was told he wasn't going anywhere...(why would he want to?)...sometimes I think they (R.s) planned to take Jonbenets body out at that time and have it disappear....

Twenty minutes after they found the body.

 

[Jane Osa]

Thanks Solace...that's just another nail in the R.s coffin of guilt.

You'd think they'd want to stay in town, be a pain in the BPD's neck to DO something instead of skip state...& when that plan failed guess who John calls: his lawyer!

 

[Solace]

I personally believe it was secondary transfer. Don't forget that we are dealing with a child here, and the article that you reference is dealing with adults in an experiment.
Kids can get "down and dirty" and "up close and personal" in their contact with other kids and pick up significant DNA.
Further, although there appears to be some confusion as to whether LCN DNA testing was used by the lab, I can see only one link that indicates regular DNA testing was used. Many links seem to indicate that LCN was used.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/ramsey-breakthrough-comes-touch-dna/
Here are some highlights from an article on secondary transfer:

• 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.
Source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf

And finally, since the DA has not released exactly what kind of "match" the DNA on the leggings was we can only guess.
My guess is that is a low marker match, perhaps similar to the fingernail DNA.

Great post on what is more than likely what happened.

 

[Solace]

Thanks Solace...that's just another nail in the R.s coffin of guilt.

You'd think they'd want to stay in town, be a pain in the BPD's neck to DO something instead of skip state...& when that plan failed guess who John calls: his lawyer!

Exactly Jane, tell me what mother would be able to leave her daughter within minutes of the body being found. There is no way, except in the minds of those who want to believe that no mother could do this to their child, as one of the grand jurors said. Unfortunately, they were not able to listen to Steve Thomas' side of things. They did get to hear Lou Smit though. But the deck is not stacked - riiiiiiiight. There is so mother evidence implicating this family that it is a tragedy that the case was handled in Boulder.

 

[Solace]

Thanks Solace...that's just another nail in the R.s coffin of guilt.

You'd think they'd want to stay in town, be a pain in the BPD's neck to DO something instead of skip state...& when that plan failed guess who John calls: his lawyer!

You would think that. Parents find their dead child. The only thing that could keep them going besides drugs and alcohol at this point would be to find the killer. If you notice the Ramseys spent all their time defending themselves and very little time actually looking for a killer. Everything was about their innocence. A true innocent does not care about themselves at that point - the grief is so overwhelming that they have one thing to sustain them and that is finding the killer who split their child's head in half, literally, and who garrotted her and who defiled her sexually with a paint brush handle, BUT LEFT NO SEMEN and left absolutely nothing but a miniscule amount of DNA in the underwear which is degraded and more than likely from a handler who wrapped it in a factory and a miniscule amount (so they say) on the leggings - which could very well be and probably is transference when the garments were removed from the body. This child by the way ALSO has evidence of prior sexual abuse in the last three days - confirmed by the autopsy report of "chronic inflammation of the vaginal wall". Chronic inflammation means "over time". The body tried to heal itself. That was happening in that home. They were so worried that morning believing their child was kidnapped by a FOREIGN FACTION that they sent their only child away to the neighbors where HE WOULD BE SAFE. He wouldn't be safe with a house full of neighbors and the POLICE.

If this weren't all true, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, what Jon Benet went through was horrific and it was horrific prior to that day in her home.

Thank God Lacy's term is almost up.

 

[BBB167893]

I figure that the whole case is now a massive screwup.

Agreed. It cannot be fixed. it's time to start over.

This is blown out of proportion because of Team Ramsey, a Team consisting of the likes of Augustin who cannot even get the autopsy straight or the evidence in the basement. It has been 11 years and he still does not take the time to get it straight. This is the second time I have seen him on tv making a complete azz of himself by not even knowing what "chronic inflammation" means. I have yet to hear someone who believes in the innocence of the Ramseys who in one way or another are out and out wrong about evidence. That is bad.

God, that was painful!

And as far as Henry Lee goes, he has said many times that he believes the Ramseys were cleared years ago BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT CONVICT. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. This does not mean he believes them to be innocent.

He TOLD Alex Hunter not to file charges, even though he said there was plenty of evidence to charge both parents with lesser crimes. Trouble is, Colorado law prevents you from doing that without charging on the murder. it's an all-or-nothing game.

Dream on. Any respected forensic in this case who knows about this case or lawyer, e.g. prosecutor Wendy Murphy, and is aware of the prior abuse that is documented in the autopsy report "chronic inflammation" knows this child was being abused - as earlly or as late as three days prior - Be it corporal punishment or sexual abuse, she was being abused.

John McCann said at least ten day. Anything beyond that would have healed up.

There is no way, except in the minds of those who want to believe that no mother could do this to their child, as one of the grand jurors said. Unfortunately, they were not able to listen to Steve Thomas' side of things.

A Grand Jury who was handpicked by pro-Ramsey attorneys and shielded from actual evidentiary testimony. ST had it right: Not-So-Grand Jury. What a waste of time that was.

 

[Jayce]

And I did not bring up Europe you did, so please don't be so rude as to tell me what is relevant and what isn't. You open a door and we can enter.

You were the one that argued that European drug policy is somehow relevant to their DNA testing standards. It just isn't...and I don't think that it is rude for me to point that out.

And as far as Henry Lee goes, he has said many times that he believes the Ramseys were cleared years ago BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT CONVICT. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. This does not mean he believes them to be innocent. He is also on record as saying it could have been an accident made to look like an intruder. So he has made conflicting statements - one that they were cleared, but one that may not necessarily be true. Sell that bs somewhere else about Henry Lee. His saying we are back to square one is his saying they were cleared by the Grand Jury, but does not necessarily believe the Ramseys are innocent. Where do you think you are Sickamore?

You claimed that Dr. Henry Lee took issue with my claims (which are evidenced by the scientific study) about secondary DNA transfer and the new DNA evidence. However, you failed to provide any quote where he questions the new DNA evidence.

The fact remains that it is extremely unlikely that the DNA found on the leggings (or the panties) was the result of secondary transference.

 

[Jayce]

Great post on what is more than likely what happened.

No. That article deals with secondary transfer as it relates to LCN testing. But LCN testing was not used.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

I need help, the other day someone posted a link to a profile on Patsy done by a student from a top notch university, and now I can't find the thread it was posted in.

Can anyone help??

 

[BBB167893]

here you are:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67365

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Thanks much Super Dave!!

 

[BBB167893]

Helping's my business.

 

[Solace]

You were the one that argued that European drug policy is somehow relevant to their DNA testing standards. It just isn't...and I don't think that it is rude for me to point that out.

You claimed that Dr. Henry Lee took issue with my claims (which are evidenced by the scientific study) about secondary DNA transfer and the new DNA evidence. However, you failed to provide any quote where he questions the new DNA evidence.

The fact remains that it is extremely unlikely that the DNA found on the leggings (or the panties) was the result of secondary transference.

I said that obviously Lee does not necessarily believe what you are saying and he does not. But if you feel better twisting then do it Jayce. I am pointing out that Europe's laws on drug testing are lax compared to ours and that goes along with my defending the needed 13 markers and your saying they use only 10 in Europe. I think the comparison is clear and you are grasping. But grasp away.

 

[Solace]

You were the one that argued that European drug policy is somehow relevant to their DNA testing standards. It just isn't...and I don't think that it is rude for me to point that out. I argued, and rightly so, that Europe's laws are lax compared to the US's when it comes to legalizing drugs and I never said it had anything to do with DNA testing but did compare their requiring only 10 markers to our requiring 13 to their more lax attitude on legalizing drugs that companies present to them. It is a fact. I did not compare drug legalizing to DNA testing but merely brought it up in order to show that Europe is not always right in what they do. And for you to bring them up to back up your argument regarding 10 markers is exactly what I am using them to refute that argument. Period.

You claimed that Dr. Henry Lee took issue with my claims (which are evidenced by the scientific study) about secondary DNA transfer and the new DNA evidence. However, you failed to provide any quote where he questions the new DNA evidence.

I claimed? Here is what I said: "Dr. Henry Lee was on tv the other day saying this new test just means we are back to "square one". Obviously, you are reading more into it than Lee does". That does not say he TOOK ISSUE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
Jayce, I notice you change things to suit what you want as you did with "male" DNA meaing it was a "man". I pointed out it could be a child.

The fact remains that it is extremely unlikely that the DNA found on the leggings (or the panties) was the result of secondary transference.

Extremely unlikely. It is also extremely unlikely, according to the grand jurist, that a parent would do this to their child. Who are you to decide that or Lacy. Unlikely is not a scientific answer. It is or it isn't. It matches with the required number of markers or IT DOESN'T. Nothing in between. This is not guess time - it is a horrific murder of a 6 year old and the evidnece points to the mother and the father - not public opinion - the evidence.

 

[Jayce]

I said that obviously Lee does not necessarily believe what you are saying and he does not. But if you feel better twisting then do it Jayce.

I am not twisting anything. You used Lee to try to cast doubt on my position regarding the secondary transfer/new DNA topic. However, you failed to provide any quote from Lee that would cast any doubt.

Regarding the secondary transfer issue; it's not just my opinion. It is the conclusion of the peer reviewed, scientific study that I referenced.

I am pointing out that Europe's laws on drug testing are lax compared to ours and that goes along with my defending the needed 13 markers and your saying they use only 10 in Europe. I think the comparison is clear and you are grasping. But grasp away.

Again, there is not logical connection between Europe's position regarding the legality of drugs and their DNA testing standards. None whatsoever. If you want to say that Europe's DNA testing standards are too lax, that is fine. But make an argument based on something relevant to the issue of DNA. Pointing out drug standards is not an argument. It is a classic red herring.

 

[Solace]

Agreed. It cannot be fixed. it's time to start over.



God, that was painful!

Second time I have seen them do it also.


He TOLD Alex Hunter not to file charges, even though he said there was plenty of evidence to charge both parents with lesser crimes. Trouble is, Colorado law prevents you from doing that without charging on the murder. it's an all-or-nothing game.

I would bet money he believes the Ramseys killed their child.


John McCann said at least ten day. Anything beyond that would have healed up.

Nice. Lovely home.



A Grand Jury who was handpicked by pro-Ramsey attorneys and shielded from actual evidentiary testimony. ST had it right: Not-So-Grand Jury. What a waste of time that was.

This case is a joke and having people defending them with this crude, crude less than bs that they are trying to blow up the public's nose is more than we should have to tolerate. I am waiting for lsomeone to come out and have some air time and expose this for what it is - it is just wrong for Lacy to have the audacity to apologize to the Ramseys.

 

[Jane Osa]

I'm starting to think that if DNA did appear in the Darla case people would leap to exonerate her. The entire 'who could have done this to their child' mentality seems to arrest people's common sense when faced with other facts, so I'd bet she'd be released - people would be relieved and be able to keep justifying their simplistic black & white mentality of the world - it's not your neighbor but some unknown 'bad guy' that you can feel remote from(emotionally I understand, but, it would seem justice for these dead children should trump those feelings).

However - there isn't any 'exonerating' DNA evidence (no one has replied to my earlier question..hmm...so, I assume no DNA was found) in her case & to the folks who wonder who can do this to their kid - Darla Routier.

(oh..and the Ramseys)

 

[Solace]

I'm starting to think that if DNA did appear in the Darla case people would leap to exonerate her. The entire 'who could have done this to their child' mentality seems to arrest people's common sense when faced with other facts, so I'd bet she'd be released - people would be relieved and be able to keep justifying their simplistic black & white mentality of the world - it's not your neighbor but some unknown 'bad guy' that you can feel remote from(emotionally I understand, but, it would seem justice for these dead children should trump those feelings).

However - there isn't any 'exonerating' DNA evidence (no one has replied to my earlier question..hmm...so, I assume no DNA was found) in her case & to the folks who wonder who can do this to their kid - Darla Routier.

(oh..and the Ramseys)

Jane,

I don't remember ever hearing anything about DNA. I remember seeing the pictures of her arms that she has on her site and was shocked and then I read that the bruises appeared after she had the IVs. One of the arms is really bad but it looks like she slammed it in a door - and I mean that seriously. The black and blue mark looks perfectly even on one of her arms. I do not know much about her, but I did read the evidence against her and there was something about the window that they proved was broken from the inside and that I found very interesting.

 

[Jayce]

but (I) did compare their requiring only 10 markers to our requiring 13 to their more lax attitude on legalizing drugs that companies present to them.

Exactly. This is exactly what I have been saying. You did compare Europe's DNA testing standards with Europe's drug policies. Their is no logical connection. One does not say anything about the other.

I did not compare drug legalizing to DNA testing but merely brought it up in order to show that Europe is not always right in what they do.

Again, you compared Europe's drug legalization standards with their DNA standards. No connection. In addition, I never claimed that Europe was always right in what they do.

And for you to bring them up to back up your argument regarding 10 markers is exactly what I am using them to refute that argument. Period.

No. My pointing out Europe's DNA standards is relevant because they have a well-respected, effective, and expert system. You keep forgetting that 10 markers is more than enough to be entered into CODIS and to go to trial in the US.

I claimed? Here is what I said: "Dr. Henry Lee was on tv the other day saying this new test just means we are back to "square one". Obviously, you are reading more into it than Lee does". That does not say he TOOK ISSUE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

You argued that because Lee claimed that we are "back to square one", therefore his interpretation of the situation is different than mine (ie I am reading more into it than he is). What is my interpretation of the situation? That the new testing shows that the DNA was not transferred secondarily. Therefore, you are claiming that Lee would take issue with my interpretation of the evidence. But you provided no quote to back this up.

Jayce, I notice you change things to suit what you want as you did with "male" DNA meaing it was a "man". I pointed out it could be a child.

Ad-hominen. I earlier unintentionally substituted "man" for "male", which is very easy to do. When I realized this, I acknowledged it. But it doesn't make any difference to any of my points.

 

[Jayce]

Unlikely is not a scientific answer. It is or it isn't. It matches with the required number of markers or IT DOESN'T. Nothing in between. This is not guess time - it is a horrific murder of a 6 year old and the evidnece points to the mother and the father - not public opinion - the evidence. [/B]

Unlikely is absolutely a scientific answer. With DNA, everything is about probabilities.