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

[Solace]

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.

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.

Jayce,

Oh really, well some might disagree with that Jayce. I don't think comparing the two is outrageous Jayce or irrelevant by any stretch. Obvioiusly Europe is a lot more lenient when it comes to certain things. We have higher standards here - in our drug testing and approval for use and in our DNA testing. Simple.

Actually, we have higher standards in a few things. Who was it whosaid she didn't think twice about having her child in England. She just didn't do it -oh yeah Madonna. Yeah, yeah, yeah, this has nothing to do with anything. We are talking about standards and you say Europe's standards are fine when it comes to DNA testing - I disagree, saying we require a little more and I added that we also require a little more when okaying certain drugs. Not exactly the far fetched argument you are implying.

As far as Lee goes, as SD reports above, Lee said there was never enough evidence to charge them, but they could be charged with plenty of other crimes. Now why would he believe that they could be charged with other crimes and why would he say that? You figure it out. Grasping at straws does not help your argument. Lee has never said the parents are guilty but he has said it is either the parents or an intruder - one or the other and he also believes they could be charged with other crimes. Why? Do you think obstruction was on his mind?

Jayce, you really ought to be more discerning when you read things and not the proverbial lamb. Just because you read something that is plastered all over the place, does not make it so.


But I am starting to expect this kind of chat from you.

 

[Jane Osa]

I watched a show on the Darla case years ago - like the R.s she claimed an intruder but, it did not add up at all. She's in prison where she belongs. Just last night I was catching up on the case here on the forum & reading the 'timeline' and things like on Devon, 'stab wound one inflicted, stab would two'...Darla goes here, there...'stab wound three'...child tries to crawl away..more stabbing - just so disgusting I couldn't investigate it anymore. I feel the R. case is similar in that the intruder theory doesn't 'add up' - however, there is the DNA. So, I wondered if someone like, say, Jayce or Wudge, would exonerate Darla if DNA were found (which I think she's appealing for by the way - to retest items) despite nothing else supporting an intruder in the case.

 

[Jayce]

Jayce,

Oh really, well some might disagree with that Jayce. I don't think comparing the two is outrageous Jayce or irrelevant by any stretch. Obvioiusly Europe is a lot more lenient when it comes to certain things. We have hire standards here - in our drug testing and in our DNA testing. Simple.

Actually, we have hire standards in a few things. Who was who said she didn't think twice about having her child in England. She just didn't do it -oh yeah Madonna. Yeah, yeah, yeah, this has nothing to do with anything. We are talking about standards and you say Europe's standards are fine when it comes to DNA testing - I disagree, saying we require a little more and I added that we also require a little more when okaying certain drugs. Not exactly the far fetched argument you are implying.



But I am starting to expect this kind of chat from you.

Solace, do you think that Europe's DNA standards are too lax? If so, why? Lets talk in mathematical and scientific terms here.

The whole reason I mentioned Europe's DNA testing standards is because (as I mentioned), they have a well-respected, effective, and expert system. And knowing their standards gives us useful information. In purely mathematical terms, however, 10 markers is enough to get a very confident match.

 

[Solace]

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

No, it is not Jayce. When someone says the chances that OJs blood could be someone else's are astronimically impossible and that you would have to go to the moon to find that person because you won't find them here and DNA proves that - it does not mean unlikely - it means that you WILL NOT FIND anyone but OJ's blood matching the blood the prosecutor is talking about. In fact that is what they wished they had said because the morons on the jury were too stupid to understand anything else.

They would agree with me that saying something like that is "unlikely" would lose their case. And a gazillion to one is not unlikely, it obliterates the chances.

 

[Jayce]

As far as Lee goes, as SD reports above, Lee said there was never enough evidence to charge them, but they could be charged with plenty of other crimes. Now why would he believe that they could be charged with other crimes and why would he say that? You figure it out. Grasping at straws does not help your argument. Lee has never said the parents are guilty but he has said it is either the parents or an intruder - one or the other and he also believes they could be charged with other crimes. Why? Do you think obstruction was on his mind?

Neither you nor I know what was on Lee's mind. None of the statements you just claimed Lee made are relevant to the topic of secondary transfer DNA

Jayce, you really ought to be more discerning when you read things and not the proverbial lamb. Just because you read something that is plastered all over the place, does not make it so.

Wow. You are really all over the place now. My arguments have been based on scientific studies, not "something that is plastered all over the place". By the way, inferring that I am being the "proverbial lamb" is classic ad-hominen.

 

[BBB167893]

Neither you nor I know what was on Lee's mind. None of the statements you just claimed Lee made are relevant to the topic of secondary transfer DNA

True, but it keeps things in context.

 

[Solace]

Solace, do you think that Europe's DNA standards are too lax? If so, why? Lets talk in mathematical and scientific terms here.

The whole reason I mentioned Europe's DNA testing standards is because (as I mentioned), they have a well-respected, effective, and expert system. And knowing their standards gives us useful information. In purely mathematical terms, however, 10 markers is enough to get a very confident match.

I am sure they do. I have seen many a documentary on how England's crimes are handled by very very compentent detectives and solved by them. You want to bring in Europe and I will do the same and try to refute what you are saying because I find it alien tha someone would take this display and travesty by Lacy and gung ho defend it. Period.

I think you are wrong in your judgement that there is an intruder. I think Patsy killed her child and did not realize it but knew something was very wrong when she heard the loud crack as her head hit the floor twice. I take the fiber evidence very seriously. You do not.

In short, we disagree Jayce. For you to jump on this like it is the answer to Newton's gravity question is juvenile to me. So you can start on your math theory any time you want.

The Ramseys are protecting each other; one of them killed their child. Period.

 

[Solace]

Neither you nor I know what was on Lee's mind. None of the statements you just claimed Lee made are relevant to the topic of secondary transfer DNA

Wow. You are really all over the place now. My arguments have been based on scientific studies, not "something that is plastered all over the place". By the way, inferring that I am being the "proverbial lamb" is classic ad-hominen.

I will say you are classic but I don't know if ad-hominen is it.

 

[BBB167893]

That goes for me, too.

 

[Jayce]

No, it is not Jayce. When someone says the chances that OJs blood could be someone else's are astronimically impossible and that you would have to go to the moon to find that person because you won't find them here and DNA proves that - it does not mean unlikely - it means that you WILL NOT FIND anyone but OJ's blood matching the blood the prosecutor is talking about. In fact that is what they wished they had said because the morons on the jury were too stupid to understand anything else.

They would agree with me that saying something like that is "unlikely" would lose their case. And a gazillion to one is not unlikely, it obliterates the chances.

Are you really disputing that DNA testing deals with probabilites? Because if you are, I would argue that you need to educate yourself further about DNA testing. A huge part of DNA testing regards the computation of probabilities. Also, when I say unlikely, I mean really unlikely. Like in the order of 1 in millions and millions. This is enough to be extremely confident. And its not that hard to make a rough estimate on what the odds would be to match 10 LOCI. According to scientific studies, the odds of two randomly selected people to match at a particular LOCI is 1 in about 13. So the odds of matching at all 10 LOCI tested would be massive.

 

[Solace]

Are you really disputing that DNA testing deals with probabilites? Because if you are, I would argue that you need to educate yourself further about DNA testing. A huge part of DNA testing regards the computation of probabilities. Also, when I say unlikely, I mean really unlikely. Like in the order of 1 in millions and millions. This is enough to be extremely confident. And its not that hard to make a rough estimate on what the odds would be to match 10 LOCI. According to scientific studies, the odds of two randomly selected people to match at a particular LOCI is 1 in about 13. So the odds of matching at all 10 LOCI tested would be massive.

Oh you mean "really" unlikely. Good Jayce, so when you are defending your client in Court, you can say to the jurors and "ladies and gentlemen of the Jury when I say Unlikely I mean really unlikely".

I can just see one of the jurors now saying "Whatever".

Love to stay here all night Jayce and argue the point, but I am going to the gym.

Have a good one.

 

[Jayce]

I am sure they do. I have seen many a documentary on how England's crimes are handled by very very compentent detectives and solved by them. You want to bring in Europe and I will do the same and try to refute what you are saying because I find it alien tha someone would take this display and travesty by Lacy and gung ho defend it. Period.

So do you believe that Europe's DNA testing standards are too lax? If so, why?

Also, I have never defended Lacy.

I take the fiber evidence very seriously. You do not.

What would give you the idea that I don't take the fiber evidence seriously?

The Ramseys are protecting each other; one of them killed their child. Period.

Sounds like your mind is made up. Is there anything that could convince you otherwise?

The Ramsey's will never get prosecuted for JonBenet's death.

 

[Jayce]

Oh you mean "really" unlikely.
Good Jayce, so when you are defending your client in Court, you can say to the jurors and "ladies and gentlemen of the Jury when I say Unlikely I mean really unlikely".

Yes, "really unlikely" as in one in hundreds of millions. Which can be mathematically calculated.

I find it interesting that you have failed to dispute any of the scientific/mathematical evidence that I have presented.

 

[BBB167893]

What would give you the idea that I don't take the fiber evidence seriously?

Come to think of it, I don't think you've ever outlined a theory.

Sounds like your mind is made up. Is there anything that could convince you otherwise?

I'll know it when I see it. How's that?

The Ramsey's will never get prosecuted for JonBenet's death.

Sadly, you're probably right. You can't prosecute a killer who's dead.

 

[Jayce]

I will say you are classic but I don't know if ad-hominen is it.

Your statement makes no sense. Do you know what ad-hominem means?

 

[Jayce]

Come to think of it, I don't think you've ever outlined a theory.



I'll know it when I see it. How's that?



Sadly, you're probably right. You can't prosecute a killer who's dead.

Hey SuperDave,

Being new to the forum, it is interesting for me to see the various personalities that post a lot. It is pretty clear that you have spent a lot of time studying and thinking about the Ramsey case. It is also interesting to me that most people here are convinced that the Ramsey's are guilty. I didn't expect this when I joined the board.

You are right that I have never outlined a theory. My main point in the last few pages is that the DNA found on the leggings is almost certainly the result of primary transfer, not secondary transfer. I base this on the fact that enough DNA was found to do routine testing, which seems to rule out secondary transfer.

I have never given a grand theory about what I think happened. I also have never defended Lacy; the more I have read about it, the more I question whether publicly exonerating the Ramsey's was the wisest course of action.

 

[BBB167893]

Got it. Just checking.

It is pretty clear that you have spent a lot of time studying and thinking about the Ramsey case.

A lot more than we'd like, I'm sure.

It is also interesting to me that most people here are convinced that the Ramsey's are guilty. I didn't expect this when I joined the board.

I guess that would be a shock.

 

[angelwngs]

snip~

The Ramsey's will never get prosecuted for JonBenet's death.

...and therein lies the problem.

 

[LinasK]

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????

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! _____________

Bingo!:clap:

 

[Solace]

Here is what Lee said on July 10th:

"Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.

“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said.“That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”

And the beat goes on and on and on. Lee apparently wants to see more tests done on the note the rope, etc. And then that is interesting. Right now it is subject to interpretation says Lee.