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

[Wudge]

I don't think that there is a single source that indicates that there are significant quantities of DNA found on JB.

They did not need to use LCN testing methodology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_sc/jonbenet_ramsey_dna

 

[JMO8778]

Then where's the blood trail? If an intruder caused a vaginal wound that bled,then there should be blood on the longjohn's and other areas as he exited the house.Not just his own skin cells.There should be a mix of JB's own blood there,too.
No intruder would bother to redress her,(in overly large underwear at that),and also pull up her longjohns..AFTER she'd screamed! He get the heck out of there,asap!!
Bottom line..why a mix of JB's own blood and some degraded foreign dna in her underwear,and nowhere else? Intruder causes JB to bleed,yet that blood isn't transferred to any other place he's touched????

 

[txsvicki]

The DNA recovered from her panties was mixed with Jon Benet's blood. Again, we are dealing with "reasonable", nothing else. You will find reasonable expressed in: proof beyond a "reasonable" doubt.

Why couldn't the dna have been transferred from the vaginal area onto the panties along with the blood from the general area that the murderer injured JonBenet. Maybe the dna from the murderer didn't just drop onto the panties. I know they said it was thought to be saliva, but could he have touched JonBenet and skin cells mixed with her blood?

 

[cynic]

They did not need to use LCN testing methodology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_sc/jonbenet_ramsey_dna

Well, I'm still certain that the the testing quantity was minimal because how many skin cells are you going to be able to scrape off of a garment?
They are also not bragging about how many markers matched which I'm sure they would if they could.
Finally, if there were such copious quantities of DNA that the "intruder" was leaving behind then why was it not found all over the room where JB was found?

 

[BBB167893]

It's the amount of touch DNA that was recovered. There was so much of it, they were able to test it in the standard process. Moreover, the same DNA was mixed with blood in her panties. It is not reasonable to say the DNA evidence is not exonerating.

But the standard processes themselves are so much more advanced than they were to start with.

Where and when?

Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

Although he is more noncommital than other investigator's I have read (who have concluded that it was liquid),

name names, Jayce.

Aha. Its interesting how you denigrate the motives and analysis of the investigators that disagree with you. Just because some of them worked for the Ramsey's does not mean that their analysis or information was wrong.

I've been at this WAY to long to put up with that garbage, Jayce. John Ramsey, early on in this case, said that he had hired private investigators to find the real killer because he didn't trust the police (all the while swearing he cooperated! LOL). But in his deposition, he finally admitted that was a lie and that the investigators were only looking for stuff to produce reasonable doubt at trial, including, and I swear I'm not making this up, targeting witnesses for dirty tricks. These same people have, in the last few days, been on television touting evidence that was disproven a long time ago.

Ok. But what I am saying is that whoever killed JonBenet (whether the Ramsey's or an intruder), was in contact with her leggings and undergarments. The fact that an unidentified male's DNA was found on 2 articles of clothing and in 3 separate locations is compelling evidence that he was the killer.

Not in this day of DNA tests that are so supersensitive they can pick up stuff from months before. DNA IS a powerful science, Jayce, but it's not the end-all be-all. Unless it's semen from a rape, it has to have other evidence along with it. No one can prove this DNA is from an intruder because no one can prove as yet there WAS an intruder in that house that night. In fact, even if the DNA isn't relevant at all, that doesn't mean there was no intruder. Did you ever think of that?

 

[BBB167893]

Why couldn't the dna have been transferred from the vaginal area onto the panties along with the blood from the general area that the murderer injured JonBenet. Maybe the dna from the murderer didn't just drop onto the panties. I know they said it was thought to be saliva, but could he have touched JonBenet and skin cells mixed with her blood?

There was no DNA found on her body. HMM. Besides, this person wore gloves and left no fingerprints, yet he takes them off to grab her? Pretty stupid!

 

[Chrishope]

For anyone who's interested, I'm starting a new thread after having talked to someone who analyzes dna every day. It casts a lot of doubt on pretty much everything we're discussing on this thread.

 

[BBB167893]

Looking forward to it.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Reasonable doubt can be discussed after all other items have been tested, such as all those in storage in a warehouse in boulder, and when it is certified that Patsy Ramsey's DNA was on the underwear, because she is the one who put them on JB. You tell me why her DNA was not on those underwear.

Transfer of skin cells is not a straight line affair. There are several different ways a person can touch an item like a pair of panties and not leave any DNA:

A) if Patsy had recently washed her hands, she may have temporarily washed away all the loose skin cells.

B) some moisturiser lotions act as glue when freshly applied to keep loose skin cells firmly attached to the skin.

C) a firm touch is more likely to transfer skin cells than a light touch; a firm touch acts to mechanically grind the cells into the fabric.

D) abrasion by other fabrics against the original fabric can remove the skin cells that were deposited; once deposited, skin cells don't magically multiply! If they are transferred to another surface, they are no longer on the first surface.

E) relative humidity levels can affect the sticking power of the skin cells. The drier the air, the more difficult it is for the skin cells to adhere.

F) a combination of two or more of the above.

As for the latest round of testing on the longjohns, I have not been able to find any news source that states that Patsy's DNA was not found. It's just not mentioned, which could mean that it wasn't found or it could mean that it was found but has been dismissed as evidence because it is known that Patsy touched the longjohns in an innocent context (preparing JonBenet for bed).

 

[BBB167893]

As for the latest round of testing on the longjohns, I have not been able to find any news source that states that Patsy's DNA was not found. It's just not mentioned, which could mean that it wasn't found or it could mean that it was found but has been dismissed as evidence because it is known that Patsy touched the longjohns in an innocent context (preparing JonBenet for bed).

I'll buy that. (It's the other stuff of hers what bothers me)

 

[JMO8778]

There was no DNA found on her body. HMM. Besides, this person wore gloves and left no fingerprints, yet he takes them off to grab her? Pretty stupid!

In PMPT,it says there was one lone print found on her body,(when it was tented and sprayed w. a glue like substance) but it doesn't say who's it was.I doubt it was unidentified though,or we would have heard about it.
It sounds to me like her body had been washed.

 

[Wudge]

For anyone who's interested, I'm starting a new thread after having talked to someone who analyzes dna every day. It casts a lot of doubt on pretty much everything we're discussing on this thread.

You said: "The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt."

That makes it exonerating evidence, because that DNA evidence alone results in reasoanble doubt.

 

[RiverRat]

There was too much DNA recovered for that to be reasonable.

Oh okay....nowwwwwwwwww there is suddenly too much DNA recovered. LOL - Link please!!!

 

[RiverRat]

But the standard processes themselves are so much more advanced than they were to start with.



Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."



name names, Jayce.



I've been at this WAY to long to put up with that garbage, Jayce. John Ramsey, early on in this case, said that he had hired private investigators to find the real killer because he didn't trust the police (all the while swearing he cooperated! LOL). But in his deposition, he finally admitted that was a lie and that the investigators were only looking for stuff to produce reasonable doubt at trial, including, and I swear I'm not making this up, targeting witnesses for dirty tricks. These same people have, in the last few days, been on television touting evidence that was disproven a long time ago.



Not in this day of DNA tests that are so supersensitive they can pick up stuff from months before. DNA IS a powerful science, Jayce, but it's not the end-all be-all. Unless it's semen from a rape, it has to have other evidence along with it. No one can prove this DNA is from an intruder because no one can prove as yet there WAS an intruder in that house that night. In fact, even if the DNA isn't relevant at all, that doesn't mean there was no intruder. Did you ever think of that?

SD - I'd bet that this latest scam is the reason why Tom Bennett abruptly quit his job at the DA's office recently.

 

[Ames]

Oh okay....nowwwwwwwwww there is suddenly too much DNA recovered. LOL - Link please!!!

Yes, RR...I would be interested in seeing that "link" too! Still waiting......tick, tock, tick, tock.....

 

[Wudge]

Oh okay....nowwwwwwwwww there is suddenly too much DNA recovered. LOL - Link please!!!

I posted it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I'll buy that. (It's the other stuff of hers what bothers me)

I will admit sometimes I cant keep up with the theories here. lol

If the unknown male DNA is trivial and insignificant because it just can be transfered from anyone (strange they remain unknown though but that is just my thoughts) yet we all know that fiber and trace evidence can spread throughout a home daily in so many common ways. Especially if they are the dwellers of the residence.

So it means nothing that the unknown male DNA has been found on the actual clothes the victim was wearing but it means everything that Patsy, who lived there, who went to the basement of her home several times, had her paints/brushes stored down there and could have possibly worn the red sweater or another red sweater in the same fabric at other times and those fibers were found in the basement inside her own home?

It cant be the location where they were found that makes a difference from what I can understand because here we have the male DNA in JBs panties and her long johns and that location just doesn't seem to be important to many so why is the fibers found more compelling?

imoo

 

[Medea]

I will admit sometimes I cant keep up with the theories here. lol

If the unknown male DNA is trivial and insignificant because it just can be transfered from anyone (strange they remain unknown though but that is just my thoughts) yet we all know that fiber and trace evidence can spread throughout a home daily in so many common ways. Especially if they are the dwellers of the residence.

So it means nothing that the unknown male DNA has been found on the actual clothes the victim was wearing but it means everything that Patsy, who lived there, who went to the basement of her home several times, had her paints/brushes stored down there and could have possibly worn the red sweater or another red sweater in the same fabric at other times and those fibers were found in the basement inside her own home?

It cant be the location where they were found that makes a difference from what I can understand because here we have the male DNA in JBs panties and her long johns and that location just doesn't seem to be important to many so why is the fibers found more compelling?

imoo

Context is everything.

If the crime scene is a home then there are almost always going to be unidentified fibers, hairs, fingerprints and DNA....the fact of it being unidentified is neither exculpatory or inculpatory unless/until its evaluated in the context of the particular case.

In this case, we stil don't really know what form the DNA is, I don't see why if its skin cell's that it can't be transfer from an innocent source...it could also be from the killer, but it seems to beg the question how did the skin cells only get on her clothing and on nothing else. Is there "touch DNA" from her parents, which one would expect. If so, then it further negates the unknown DNA. If not, then it is more supportive of an intruder being the last person to touch her.

The fibers consistent w/Patsy's sweater are more inculpatory because they were embedded in items used on JonBenet during the crime. Fibers from her sweater found on the child's clothing would be neither inculpatory or exculpatory w/out other evidence.

Mary Lacy's motivations are also somewhat suspect in this case...including the fact she wanted on the case originally but didn't get it and the Karr fiasco...by leaving office saying that 'yes, it was an intruder' she is validating her arrest of Karr...yes it was an intruder/pedophile...only we caught the wrong one. Only time will tell us whether or not Lacy's next job is in any way related to Hal Haddon or his cronies. If so, that is further evidence that she is not objective. If not, then it goes toward this being her honest viewpoint.

 

[RiverRat]

I posted it.

So, like with The Intruder, this was a One Time Deal only?

 

[LI_Mom]

So, like with The Intruder, this was a One Time Deal only?

LOL!!!



Mr. Wudge,

Listen carefully!

We're a small foreign faction & we demand you repost the link.

Victory!
S.B.T.C