Nobody is cleared!

[Love_Mama]

I thought I read somewhere that this Touch DNA was supposed to have been used in the Peter Falconio case in Australia so has it been used to convict in a crime or not I wonder? Does anyone know?

Ciara, yes it was.

See here

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2008/touch_dna.html

xxxxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss:

 

[Ciara]

Thanks Love_Mama. Nedthan already posted that it had but the more sources the better:blowkiss:

 

[ttrachel04]

If any of us were to die today, and our clothing and persons checked for DNA, they would find innumerable "touch DNA" on us, and much of it would be from perfect strangers that we don't remember meeting during the course of our recent lives. Every time someone touches you or comes close enough, DNA from them may in fact, in the form of skin cells stay with you

Enough said

Mary Lacy gave the Ramseys a parting gift before she leaves office

yes, but the touch DNA is the same DNA that was found INSIDE her panties ... in the crotch of her panties, is how they phrase it.

i saw on the news that they heard about touch DNA and started to think about what else would the perp have touched? well, her long johns to get them down. and sure enough, there was touch dna on her long johns. and it matched the DNA inside her panties.

i highly doubt some stranger she brushed earlier that day would have left their dna INSIDE her underwear.

 

[ttrachel04]

The clear to the caller answer was: Touch DNA has never been used to convict anyone IN THE USA of a crime. I feel very concerned that a thread of huge proportions exists which has a misleading title. I don't think the Ramseys are cleared at ALL, and neither do many other posters/ people outside of WS.

DNA is EXTREMELY new.

it isn't some age-old forensic test that never works that they're trying to pull off.

it's new technology, that has not necessarily been giving the chance to be used in court. you have to give new technologies the chance to work before dismissing it.

and apparently it has been used to clear Tim Masters:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/

the article states that Masters spent 9 1/2 years in jail (not sure for what). He was released because of Touch DNA ... it showed another man's skin cell DNA inside the woman's panties and on the cuff of the vic's blouse.

 

[LI_Mom]

yes, but the touch DNA is the same DNA that was found INSIDE her panties ... in the crotch of her panties, is how they phrase it.

i saw on the news that they heard about touch DNA and started to think about what else would the perp have touched? well, her long johns to get them down. and sure enough, there was touch dna on her long johns. and it matched the DNA inside her panties.

i highly doubt some stranger she brushed earlier that day would have left their dna INSIDE her underwear.

But.... she could have transferred it herself....

from hand to vaginal area when she wiped/touched herself & to her own waistband while asleep.


IF they would test OTHER areas of her clothing.... the top she was wearing & the objects used in the attack & they ALL came back with the same dna fragments, THEN it would be hard to refute.

If her hands were tied, it's less likely that she touched the garrote, the tape covering her mouth, the blanket covering her also should show that fragmented touch dna.

 

[txsvicki]

yes, but the touch DNA is the same DNA that was found INSIDE her panties ... in the crotch of her panties, is how they phrase it.

i saw on the news that they heard about touch DNA and started to think about what else would the perp have touched? well, her long johns to get them down. and sure enough, there was touch dna on her long johns. and it matched the DNA inside her panties.

i highly doubt some stranger she brushed earlier that day would have left their dna INSIDE her underwear.

I agree. You won't be finding any non husband male's dna inside my underwear. The only way I could see that happening would be if the longjohns and panties were brand new never worn, bought at the same store, same time, and some man had taken them out of the package and looked at them.

 

[Ames]

yes, but the touch DNA is the same DNA that was found INSIDE her panties ... in the crotch of her panties, is how they phrase it.

i saw on the news that they heard about touch DNA and started to think about what else would the perp have touched? well, her long johns to get them down. and sure enough, there was touch dna on her long johns. and it matched the DNA inside her panties.

i highly doubt some stranger she brushed earlier that day would have left their dna INSIDE her underwear.

Oh, you are talking about that DEFRAGMENTED DNA that was found inside her panties. You do know that she would ask anybody to wipe her, right? That could have came from someone at the White's party. And how did DEFRAGMENTED DNA become FRAGMENTED all of the sudden...enough so, to clear the Ramsey's?

 

[Ames]

I agree. You won't be finding any non husband male's dna inside my underwear. The only way I could see that happening would be if the longjohns and panties were brand new never worn, bought at the same store, same time, and some man had taken them out of the package and looked at them.

OR...it came from a factory worker...like Lee said in the beginning. He said that other brand new panties...never worn...were tested and that small amounts of DNA were found on them. So, it would have had to have came from a factory worker. The long johns get the touch DNA by secondary transfer.

 

[LI_Mom]

DNA is EXTREMELY new.

it isn't some age-old forensic test that never works that they're trying to pull off.

it's new technology, that has not necessarily been giving the chance to be used in court. you have to give new technologies the chance to work before dismissing it.

and apparently it has been used to clear Tim Masters:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/

the article states that Masters spent 9 1/2 years in jail (not sure for what). He was released because of Touch DNA ... it showed another man's skin cell DNA inside the woman's panties and on the cuff of the vic's blouse.

So I suppose this means it's absolutely impossible that this victim had contact with another male BEFORE she met her killer?????

I think this type of excluding of suspects is VERY, VERY flimsy & can end up letting a whole lot of criminals walk.

We're not examining people who were in test tubes up until they were murdered... they had contact with other humans.

 

[LI_Mom]

Does anyone know if all the CHILDREN at the party were tested?

It's also a possibility that JB played doctor with a little friend while the adults were busy socializing.

 

[luvbeaches]

Great post, Barbara!

 

[BBB167893]

But.... she could have transferred it herself....

from hand to vaginal area when she wiped/touched herself & to her own waistband while asleep.


IF they would test OTHER areas of her clothing.... the top she was wearing & the objects used in the attack & they ALL came back with the same dna fragments, THEN it would be hard to refute.

If her hands were tied, it's less likely that she touched the garrote, the tape covering her mouth, the blanket covering her also should show that fragmented touch dna.

DNA is everywhere, and that's no exaggeration.

PLUS, no one has even said if it's a full profile. If it's in the same state as the underwear DNA, then we're back to square one.

 

[txsvicki]

Was the dna on the panties found in the drop of blood or in another location? I can't remember.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

DNA is everywhere, and that's no exaggeration.

PLUS, no one has even said if it's a full profile. If it's in the same state as the underwear DNA, then we're back to square one.

I would think they have a full profile since Lacy said they would be trying to find a match in the CODIS data bank.

imoo

 

[Amity]

Barbara and so many of you on this post have written what I wanted to say but my grammar and ability to articulate so beautifully ...well, I fall very short.

Thank you for putting into words what I've been thinking since this Touch DNA news broke.

Since the news broke, I've mulled it over and keep coming back to....
What if the DNA was on JBR's own hands...under her own fingernails to be more precise, and in the little girl pulling on and off her own undies and leggings, she transfered the DNA to both places?

Far fetched, ok. But possible, no?
No more far fetched than exonerating the parents just because DNA doesn't match them, right?

 

[BBB167893]

I would think they have a full profile since Lacy said they would be trying to find a match in the CODIS data bank.

imoo

Considering that they entered it into CODIS five years ago when it was far from full, that hardly proves anything, oceanblueeyes.

 

[JMO8778]

how many markers match,has it been said? why so vague? the letter to John says nothing about that.

 

[Darlene733510]

Wasn't it Camper who said this DNA could have even come from a toilet seat?

Were all the males at the Christmas party tested?

What about all the evidence stored in the warehouse that has never been tested?

 

[Ames]

Wasn't it Camper who said this DNA could have even come from a toilet seat?

Were all the males at the Christmas party tested?

What about all the evidence stored in the warehouse that has never been tested?

Camper is right. I found an article that I posted on another thread that said that touch DNA can come from someone touching an object, and then someone else touching that same object. I still can't figure out how that "DEFRAGMENTED" DNA suddenly became fragmented enough to clear the Rams. :waitasec:

Good question...what about that "warehouse FULL of evidence that has never been looked at"...that was talked about on the 10th Anniversary Special...(48 Hours).

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Since the news broke, I've mulled it over and keep coming back to....
What if the DNA was on JBR's own hands...under her own fingernails to be more precise, and in the little girl pulling on and off her own undies and leggings, she transfered the DNA to both places?

Far fetched, ok. But possible, no?
No more far fetched than exonerating the parents just because DNA doesn't match them, right?

I think that is one of the most logical explanations I have heard.