No intruder?

I think it's not correct to say touch DNA is unreliable. It is no more or less reliable than DNA collected in any other fashion. The fact that it hasn't yet been matched is the problem.

I know that there is a form of centralised system here, where convicted criminals are DNA tested and there have been matches to DNA collected at crime scenes from unsolved cases.

We have to understand that there is an estimation of something like 90% of crimes committed by 20% of the population, so it stands to reason that convicted criminals would be responsible for many unsolved crimes.

However, there is also a large number of unsolved murders in every country and I don't think we can assume that they were all committed by serial 'criminals'. Many would have been a single instance, while others would have been committed by people who have never been under suspicion, but who have killed previously.

The latter is what I think may have happened in JBR's case. It seems incredible that so little 'evidence' has been found, but the DNA is just one indicator that yes, there was an intruder (not the parents), who murdered her. Just on this forum are people who have studied many unsolved crimes and it stands to reason that there are also criminals who have similarly set out to study how not to leave behind evidence. Having said that there are quite a few unidentified items, some may be just innocent, but others may be from the perp. Due to their nature, it may not be until after the murderer is identified (by DNA) that the evidence clicks into place. So, while I can see that the DNA is not the solving of the crime in itself necessarily, it will be a massive clue when it's source is discovered. Then the fiber, hair and other artifacts associated with the crime will become important in convincing a jury of his guilt.

We can argue the significance of the touch DNA and the presence or absence of other DNA for ever without coming to a solution. But it is no different to, say, having a photograph of someone who was seen at a crime. Unless and until that person is identified, this murder is not going to be solved.

Here is some more touch dna info:


Touch DNA doesn’t require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.

Here’s how it works: Investigators recover cells from the scene, then use a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to make lots of copies of the genes. Next, scientists mix in fluorescent compounds that attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA and give a highly specific genetic portrait of that person. The whole process takes a few days, and forensic labs are often backed up analyzing data from other cases.

These 13 locations were carefully chosen because they are highly variable between people and do not give away any specific information, such as race, gender, personal health or genetic disease. The reason: authorities don’t want personal health information being used for law-enforcement purposes, such as interrogations. The chance of DNA profiles from two different people having the same genetic signature is vanishingly small.

The trick to finding these cells: context. If clothing is removed from the victim, as it was in the Ramsey case, a forensic specialist could try to guess where it might have been handled—perhaps the waistband of a pair of pants—and swab those areas with a Q-tip or a blade. But in cases like the JonBenet Ramsey murder, which has tripped up authorities for over a decade, it can provide information that leads to a killer—or at least exonerates the innocent.


You know, the hair they found on the blanket, that was at first called a pubic hair, was found to be a frippen arm hair from Patsy. Wonder if the touch dna was mixed with Patsys touch dna and thats why they can't finc any matches.

You'll have to try much harder to convince me MF.
 
Heres the thing, even if the touch DNA, could be traced to someone, it does not make that person the killer...
 
First of all, touch dna is amplified dna:

What is Touch DNA?

• Touch DNA is not Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA. LCN DNA profiling allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, from as little as 5 to 20 cells. Because of the small amount of starting DNA in LCN samples, many more cycles of amplification are necessary.


• Touch DNA samples at Bode are processed/amplified exactly the same way as blood, semen, saliva etc, and are therefore admissible in court.

Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene. Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from countless items including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, and luggage handles, just to name a few.

However, since Touch DNA is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or other body fluids, it is more difficult to obtain DNA profiles from touch DNA samples. The key to obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis and using the sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells.

Many labs test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. In the “swabbing method”, the surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard items such as glass or plastic. The “cutting method” may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells. These two approaches can be successful on many items of evidence and both are used by Bode Technology; however they both have the limitation of placing unnecessary substrate (the cotton swab itself or the fabric cuttings) into the small DNA processing tube. There is a limited amount of substrate that can be placed in a tube, and the substrate itself may “trap” some cells during processing, which would decrease the likelihood of obtaining results.

In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode has recently started using the “Scraping” and “Tape Lift” methods, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) are either scraped with a blade, or sampled with a small piece of tape, to collect possible cells. Due to the lack of unnecessary substrate generated by these methods (scraping produces a small “pile” of fiber, cells, and debris that can easily be placed in the DNA processing tube), a larger surface area can be sampled. An increase in surface area increases the number of possible cells recovered; therefore, increasing the chances of obtaining a DNA profile.

The scraping/tape lift methods are ideal in situations where the scientist can locate areas on the item which are most likely to contain the perpetrator’s skin cells. If clothing were left at the crime scene by the perpetrator, pressure points on the clothing such as the interior neck of a shirt or the band inside a hat, are excellent candidates for these sampling methods. In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.

Through improvements in sampling methods corresponding to increasingly sensitive DNA testing methods, and through continual education of the criminal justice community regarding the testing possibilities, Touch DNA is enabling forensic scientists to provide information in cases which were once unsolvable.

my bolding

Could I suggest that you re-read this??

Amplified dna is only as accurate as the touch dna that is there. Remember MF that Patsy admitted that she touched the long johns. So whose dna did they amplify? They had a contaminated sample to begin with as Patsy HAD to have touched it and it was NOT known whether the long jons were new or previously worn.

Nopey, nope, nope. YOU think it was contaminated. This is not mentioned here and Bode has not given out any information about this.
 
We have no way of knowing if the Ramseys may have stopped at a convenience store or such for a "potty stop" for JonBenet. If so, Lord only knows where that dna came from!
 
"Nopey, nope, no" that is so familiar to me. Someone else I know says that a lot. I don't think it was here though, so nevermind.
 
You're not alone, Ive heard it too, but I cant place where or who. Must be a movie if we both heard it, Beck.
 
We have no way of knowing if the Ramseys may have stopped at a convenience store or such for a "potty stop" for JonBenet. If so, Lord only knows where that dna came from!

Lord probably does know. Now, if only RDI would admit it.
 
Hi Agatha, boy is everyone having a hard time sleeping tonight, or what? Do you read a lot? I do. Maybe it's something we've both read and it just kinda stuck. That happens to me a lot. I've a really good memory for what I read.
 
Could I suggest that you re-read this??



Nopey, nope, nope. YOU think it was contaminated. This is not mentioned here and Bode has not given out any information about this.

Nopey, nope, nope? That reminds me a LOT of someone else MF. Maybe you know her?

By the way you are as usual ignoring what I said to you. I don't care what Bode said. Patsy admitted she TOUCHED the LONG JOHNS, that she PUT them on HER daughter. What part of that sentence is not making sense to you? She touched them. Where is her touch DNA? I KNOW what I said!
 
So IDI are the only ones who know, the Lord probably knows, and RDI doesn't know... Hmmmmm, Okay, I guess...
 
I wish I could remember, it's driving me nuts. I hate that. I'll probably wake from a sound sleep with the answer if I just let it go.
 
Nopey, nope, nope? That reminds me a LOT of someone else MF. Maybe you know her?

By the way you are as usual ignoring what I said to you. I don't care what Bode said. Patsy admitted she TOUCHED the LONG JOHNS, that she PUT them on HER daughter. What part of that sentence is not making sense to you? She touched them. Where is her touch DNA? I KNOW what I said!

And like I told you, (what part of this do you not understand), that question is only one that the laboratory that did the testing (Bode) can answer, and unfortunately, they refuse to provide us with this information.
 
And like I told you, (what part of this do you not understand), that question is only one that the laboratory that did the testing (Bode) can answer, and unfortunately, they refuse to provide us with this information.

MF you are obviously an intelligent person. I believe that you can understand contamination. Contamination gets evidence thrown out of court on a daily basis. Someone else, at least ONE someone else, touched the long johns. That's enough to contaminate a sample of TOUCH dna.
 
MF you are obviously an intelligent person. I believe that you can understand contamination. Contamination gets evidence thrown out of court on a daily basis. Someone else, at least ONE someone else, touched the long johns. That's enough to contaminate a sample of TOUCH dna.

Well, when/if it GOES to court, then the Bode representative can tell you if what you assume is true or false.
 
Well, when/if it GOES to court, then the Bode representative can tell you if what you assume is true or false.

I am sure it will be an OJ situation and expert after expert will refute each other. But guess what? I know the REST of the LONG JOHNS need to be examined and checked!

Guess what else I know? The dna touch evidence will never convict an idi. One doesn't exist!!
 
I am sure it will be an OJ situation and expert after expert will refute each other. But guess what? I know the REST of the LONG JOHNS need to be examined and checked!

Guess what else I know? The dna touch evidence will never convict an idi. One doesn't exist!!

Not on it's own, as I said, it will identify the IDI, but a conviction will require more evidence.
 
Well, when/if it GOES to court, then the Bode representative can tell you if what you assume is true or false.

Not on it's own, as I said, it will identify the IDI, but a conviction will require more evidence.

MF there is NO other evidence. None. Zip, zero nada!! None! There is however multitudes of evidence against the R's. Their statements, fiber evidence, the RN etc., etc., etc.

You are right about one thing though. Your IF it ever goes to court. Unfortunately, I find it impossible to believe it ever can or will.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
450
Total visitors
587

Forum statistics

Threads
626,850
Messages
18,534,424
Members
241,134
Latest member
sabr1n3
Back
Top