Questions about Dr. Meyer

[Shylock]

Meyer appears to have used sterile clippers for the autopsy of JonBenét. The male DNA found in her fingernail clippings obviously did not come from the clippers.

"Appears to" according to what source, LP? How did the DNA obviously not come from the clippers?

LP, you are obviously giving WAY to much credit to Meyer.
HIGH PROBABILITY: A man who did NOT know enough to use a separate clippers on each nail to avoid cross-contamination is also NOT going to know that he should be using a new/clean clippers in the first place.

When it comes to Meyer, it's a clear fact that he was lacking the most basic knowledge required when it comes to the collection of samples for DNA testing.

 

[Barbara]

Thank you, maxi--I was referring to Pam Paugh.

Meyer appears to have used sterile clippers for the autopsy of JonBenét. The male DNA found in her fingernail clippings obviously did not come from the clippers.

The complete male DNA profile (obtained in 1999) that has been submitted (2003) to CODIS is from a blood stain on JonBenét's panties.

I have not read a credible published source claiming that the male DNA from the nail clippings is either consistent with or inconsistent with the male DNA from the panties, but my own leaning is toward consistent--based on Smit's assertion that the DNA from the clippings was consistent with the DNA from the panties.

How did it get from an unsterile clipper to a sterile clipper. Is there a source for either?

The DNA profile is from a blood stain? Lin Wood stated it is from saliva.

I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke.

It ALL boils down to our "leanings"

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab, you're really stretching it to make your theory. Not a single person who worked on the case and actually knows the FACTS has ever stated that Steve Thomas lies about anything in his book. That includes Lou Smit. Thomas has said, both in chat and under oath, that he stands by every word in his book.

Steve Thomas blatantly lied at the June 1, 1998 presentation to the D.A. and to the nation while trying to get an indictment of Patsy Ramsey. Here's what Thomas said as he tried to pull it off:

"The CBI examiners explained that of the seventy-three persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship and had been in the home the night of the killing and could not be eliminated by no less than six document examiners -- Patsy Ramsey."

That obfuscated sentence was pure deception. The truth of the matter is the CBI graded Patsy's handwriting as a 4.5 out of a possible 5.0, with 5.0 being a virtual impossibility as the writer of the ransom note. The CBI termed the 4.5 result "a very low probability" of Patsy being the writer.

Thomas also started the ludicrous statement that "24 out of 26" letters in the ransom note matched Patsy's handwriting. They didn't. Thomas could not provide a source for the statement -- which from a scientific standpoint didn't make any sense to begin with.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Barbara, the male DNA was recovered from within the bloodspots on JonBenét's panties. The blood belonged to JonBenét.

As far as I know, the source of the male DNA--whether blood, saliva, sweat, skin cells, etc--has not been publically identified.

BPD has DNA from all the Ramseys. If there was a match, or the possibility of a match, to any of them the male DNA would never have been submitted to CODIS to search for a match.

 

[Britt]

BPD has DNA from all the Ramseys. If there was a match, or the possibility of a match, to any of them the male DNA would never have been submitted to CODIS to search for a match.

It wasn't... not by the BPD.

It was submitted under the reign of Keenan and Wood as part of the continued PR-spinning, lawsuit-avoiding games between the prime suspects and the BDA's office.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason the BPD didn't submit it was because it DOES match Burke or JAR. And now with the BPD safely out of the picture, the Wood-Keenan-Ramsey show can proceed without interference.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

You think the male DNA found in JonBenét's panties matches either JAR or Burke?

In case you haven't noticed, both JAR and Burke are male Ramseys. The male DNA from JonBenét's panties does not match a Ramsey.

 

[Britt]

You think the male DNA found in JonBenét's panties matches either JAR or Burke?

In case you haven't noticed, both JAR and Burke are male Ramseys. The male DNA from JonBenét's panties does not match a Ramsey.

Says who? Got a source?

To quote Barbara: I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke. As for non-official sources, according to the Enquirer excerpt on the other thread, the only Ramseys mentioned are John and Patsy.

 

[BlueCrab]

Says who? Got a source?

To quote Barbara: I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke. As for non-official sources, according to the Enquirer excerpt on the other thread, the only Ramseys mentioned are John and Patsy.

And according to an off-the-cuff remark by Mark Fuhrman during a nationally broadcast panel show several years ago, and apparently endorsed by Dr. Michael Baden as the camera caught him nodding approval, THERE ARE RAMSEY FAMILY MARKERS IN THE FOREIGN DNA TAKEN FROM JONBENET.

Just my opinion.

 

[MIBRO]

To quote Barbara: I have not read a credible published scientific source that states the DNA could not possibly be from a Ramsey, including Burke.

Many of us DID read it on the television screen captured DNA Report of early January 1997 shown on 48 Hours.

 

[Shylock]

Steve Thomas blatantly lied at the June 1, 1998 presentation to the D.A. and to the nation while trying to get an indictment of Patsy Ramsey. Here's what Thomas said as he tried to pull it off:

"The CBI examiners explained that of the seventy-three persons whose writing had been investigated, there was only one whose writing showed evidence that suggested authorship and had been in the home the night of the killing and could not be eliminated by no less than six document examiners -- Patsy Ramsey."

That obfuscated sentence was pure deception. The truth of the matter is the CBI graded Patsy's handwriting as a 4.5 out of a possible 5.0, with 5.0 being a virtual impossibility as the writer of the ransom note. The CBI termed the 4.5 result "a very low probability" of Patsy being the writer.

Thomas also started the ludicrous statement that "24 out of 26" letters in the ransom note matched Patsy's handwriting. They didn't. Thomas could not provide a source for the statement -- which from a scientific standpoint didn't make any sense to begin with.

BlueCrab, I think it's YOU that is twisting Thomas' words. Look at what you just posted. You say "HE lied in the presentation to the DA", when Thomas clearly says the "CBI exhaminers" did the presentation--not he/himself.
I also don't find that sentence to be "pure deception" as you claim. It says that out of the people whose handwriting they tested, only Patsy had both handwriting that matched and the lack of a perfect alibi. (Maybe someone elses handwriting couldn't be eliminated, but they were cleared because they were proven to be in another state while the crime was taking place.) The "pure deception" is YOUR spin, not Thomas.

And the 4.5 out of 5 score for Patsy came from the hired Ramsey handwriting team, not from the CBI.

And I doubt anyone would have a problem with the statistic that Patsy matched 24 out of 26 letters after seeing the PDF file of what was submitted in the Wolf civil suit. The CBI has 10-years of Ramsey writing samples they took from the house--much more evidence that is shown in that PDF document. It's clear Patsy authored the ransom note just by what is available in the PDF file.

 

[Britt]

Many of us DID read it on the television screen captured DNA Report of early January 1997 shown on 48 Hours.

January 1997?

Wood says this "new" DNA was "discovered" in 1999.

 

[TLynn]

LovelyPigeon -

I must challenge the "sterile" clippers. Never have I heard that. NEVER.

Perhaps the panty DNA is a different story - but I don't think so. I remember reading if it was a mixture of two or more people - male Ramseys could not be eliminated.

Henry Lee said no DNA case. He saw the evidence first hand. He said it's the pineapple. He also said "rice cooked."

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Dr

It seems to me to be unfair to pick on John Meyer, especially since we don't know the whole story. All of the information he obtained from the body of JonBenet is not in the autopsy report.

For instance, there's been criticizm about him not taking the body temperature of JonBenet as soon as arrived at the scene. This of course might of helped estimate time of death. But perhaps he did get the temperatures and the information has been withheld from the public. Meyer entered the house at 8:20 P.M. on the 26th and left 10 minutes later. However, his assistant, Patricia Dunn, stayed after Meyer left, and perhaps she obtained the body temperatures.

Just my opinion.

Dr myer said he didn’t take jonbenets tenperature because removing her clothing for rectal testing or liver testing would contaminate rhe body and potentially lose evidence. He also said temperature testing isn’t accurate because of outside factors such as the clothing the body is wearing, the temperature of the surroundings, the size of the body etc and the formulas used to determine time of death using temperature of the body are inconsistent. He felt it was best not to contaminate the body or risk losing evidence.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Dr

Dr myer said he didn’t take jonbenets tenperature because removing her clothing for rectal testing or liver testing would contaminate rhe body and potentially lose evidence. He also said temperature testing isn’t accurate because of outside factors such as the clothing the body is wearing, the temperature of the surroundings, the size of the body etc and the formulas used to determine time of death using temperature of the body are inconsistent. He felt it was best not to contaminate the body or risk losing evidence.

I’d dr Myer had taken jonbenets temperature via rectal thermometer, he could have contaminated or destroyed the dna evidence in jonbenets underpants. He made the right decision not to take jonbenets tempersture.

 

[887sMtreme]

And who would you quote for this "information" about clippers?

Contamination? what contamination? Have you not heard that the testing of the 2nd spot of blood on JonBenét's panties yielded a male DNA sample complete enough for CODIS comparison?

Those old rumors about clippers and contamination are way lame.

Just for the record, the sample supplied for CODIS comparison was so thin on data that it barely squeaked through acceptance.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Just for the record, the sample supplied for CODIS comparison was so thin on data that it barely squeaked through acceptance.

Mitch Morrissey said it was an almost complete profile.

 

[Ponytale]

Mitch Morrissey said it was an almost complete profile.

Mitch Morrissey interview with Graig Silverman.

Mitch Morrissey: The problem with using genetic genealogy on that is it is a mixture. So, when you go to sequence it, you're going to get both persons types in the sequence. And it's a very, very small amount of DNA. And for genetic genealogy to do sequencing, you need a lot more DNA than what you're used to in the criminal system. So, where you could test maybe eight skin cells and get a profile and, you know, solve your murder, or exonerate an innocent person, you can't do that with sequencing. You've got to have a pretty good amount of DNA.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Mitch Morrissey interview with Graig Silverman.

Mitch Morrissey: The problem with using genetic genealogy on that is it is a mixture. So, when you go to sequence it, you're going to get both persons types in the sequence. And it's a very, very small amount of DNA. And for genetic genealogy to do sequencing, you need a lot more DNA than what you're used to in the criminal system. So, where you could test maybe eight skin cells and get a profile and, you know, solve your murder, or exonerate an innocent person, you can't do that with sequencing. You've got to have a pretty good amount of DNA.

That’s why the last remaining bloodspot needs to be tested using today’s technology. They can seperate jonbenets dna from the unknown males DNA. They also need to test the crime scene items they have in storage that have never been tested.

 

[887sMtreme]

Mitch Morrissey said it was an almost complete profile.

It was not.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

H

It was not.

How do you know it wasn’t an almost complete profile? It was enough to enter it into codis.