Question

[Ivy]

LP, my understanding is that the sample had to be amplified before there were enough markers to enter into the database. Often what appear to be additional markers in PCR amplification are really just stutter bands, indicative of a false positive result.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Ivy, what do you base your understanding upon?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Maxi, let's say the male DNA eventually is "matched" to someone who lived 2 blocks away from the Rs in 1996, but was not known to the Rs, had never been invited to their home, had never been in contact with JonBenét...

Would you think that his DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties could be innocently explained away?

 

[Maxi]

If the guy lived in the same city, I think a defense attorney could make a case for reasonable doubt on the DNA. The sample was supposedly mixed, the DNA just trace, maybe degraded or mixed with degraded, and partial. Not to mention that much DNA technology is still somewhat controversial.

Now, if they find a guy who has used the same MO, same signature, and was known to be in the area at the time, I think the DNA could be used to support a case. But not to make one.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

But what we were led to believe about the DNA from the BPD turns out not to be accurate. There is sufficient DNA of sufficient quality to submit the sample to CODIS.

I don't think a jury would believe that some innocent transfer caused a man's DNA to be mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

P.S.--the thread "A break in the Susannah Chase" has locked up for me. Anybody else having trouble with it?

 

[Ivy]

LovelyPigeon, I base my understanding that the sample was amplified on articles I've read about the DNA being entered into the FBI database. Here's an excerpt from one of the articles:

Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

Source

 

[Maxi]

If JBR scratched herself, depositing the DNA on or near her genitals or in her underwear, it could then mix easily with the blood from the sexual assault. If the DNA is indeed degraded, that's the only thing that makes sense to me (other than Sum Yung Gai). Of course, old DNA have been deposited on JBR from the fingernails whoever scratched her hymen -- and that could be his/her DNA or someone with whom he or she had come in contact.

What do you think might be the source of the foreign DNA (skin cells, saliva, etc.?) and why such a tiny amount?

 

[Maxi]

P.S.--the thread "A break in the Susannah Chase" has locked up for me. Anybody else having trouble with it?

I can see all of it, and it let me post. What's it doing for you?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

maxi, that thread just keeps "loading" and won't stop for me. I have to reboot after I've clicked on it and get frozen.

 

[Toth]

I don't think a jury would believe that some innocent transfer caused a man's DNA to be mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties.

I sure hope not! It would be a real challenge for a defense lawyer to come up with some explanation for his dna being under her fingernails, but in her panties? No way!

 

[Ivy]

Is there a reliable source stating that the underpants DNA and fingernail DNA match? An ABC news article (the page is no longer available) stated that they do not match.

Wood contends that the underwear DNA and the fingernail DNA have "as many as" a half-dozen markers in common. So, the remaining markers are non-matching, right?

 

[popcorn]

It's hard to believe that out of thousands of markers the same measley 8 or less showed identically under the nails and in the panties. That's as good as the magic bullet theory in the JFK assassination. As they checked males and females the DNA is either from both and thereful does not match or can't be sexed period. To say that the foreign DNA deposits are male and match goes not only against every reliable source but against common sense.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Ivy, Lou Smit has said in televised interviews that the male dna from fingernail clippings and male dna from panties is consistent with each other.

 

[Imon128]

LP, Smit is the only source I've known to have said that, too. Was he still on the case when that testing was done? I'm not sure where HE got that idea.

 

[Ivy]

LP, thanks, but after seeing his Power Point presentation on TV, I don't consider LS a reliable source for information on the case.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Yes, he was still on the case when the first dna testing was done.

Smit has not been contradicted about male dna from any case insider that I've heard of.

 

[Ivy]

LP, all case insiders these days are members of the RST, or, like Keenan, are smooching up to them. There's no one left to contradict Smit.

 

[Shylock]

Ivy, Lou Smit has said in televised interviews that the male dna from fingernail clippings and male dna from panties is consistent with each other.

Smit also said that a blue line (vein) on her back was caused by an electrical arc.
I wouldn't trust Smit's understanding of ANYTHING technical in nature, he's shown himself to be not the brightest bulb.

 

[Shylock]

It would be a real challenge for a defense lawyer to come up with some explanation for his dna being under her fingernails, but in her panties? No way!

I disagree (does that surprise you Toth?). Seeing little girls DO have a tendency to make trips to the bathroom, anything on their hands can easily be explained as simple transfer to their underwear.

Toth, lets pretend a little girl is running home from a birthday party and gets hit and killed by a car. The coroner finds chocolate under her fingernails and a trace of chocolate in her panties. Are you going to contrive some big sexual crime story about it or just explain it as simple secondary transfer from a bathroom break after eating birthday cake?