Simple question...

[cynic]

"numerous examples given on here - often provided by rather eminent DNA experts"

First of all, I haven't read one single scenario that places matching DNA in the blood in JBR's underwear AND on BOTH sides of the waistband of her longjohns AND underneath her fingernails, innocently.

Are you forgetting your own thread … and perhaps an innocent explanation?
And don’t bother wasting people’s time with the fingernail DNA. I think even Lin Wood has stopped mentioning that.

 

[Sophie]

As Cyril Wecht put it, if it was generally accepted that the finger nail DNA might be a contaminant, you can't start replying on matches to that possible contiminant as proving that an intruder did it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you forgetting your own thread … and perhaps an innocent explanation?
And don’t bother wasting people’s time with the fingernail DNA. I think even Lin Wood has stopped mentioning that.

Since you seem to be the eminent DNA expert, you of all people should know that the fingernail DNA has not been ruled out as matching the rest of the DNA. Therefore, an innocent transfer of DNA scenario should include the fingernail DNA.

That shouldn't be too hard for RDI to do. Start with DNA in JBR's fingernails being transferred to these other areas via JBR.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As Cyril Wecht put it, if it was generally accepted that the finger nail DNA might be a contaminant, you can't start replying on matches to that possible contiminant as proving that an intruder did it.

Of course the fingernail DNA doesn't prove an intruder did it. The totality of DNA evidence probably does, though.

 

[cynic]

Since you seem to be the eminent DNA expert

Thanks for the title. Flattery will get you everywhere.

…you of all people should know that the fingernail DNA has not been ruled out as matching the rest of the DNA

I don’t consider 2 or 3 markers a “match” to anything.
You may share two markers with your next door neighbor.

Start with DNA in JBR's fingernails being transferred to these other areas via JBR.

I think that’s your inner RDI voice coming through.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Thanks for the title. Flattery will get you everywhere.
I don’t consider 2 or 3 markers a “match” to anything.
You may share two markers with your next door neighbor.
I think that’s your inner RDI voice coming through.

I don't consider 2 or 3 markers a match either. Where did you hear THAT?

I have a news article referencing 'DNA' found under JBR's fingernails that they were actively using to compare potential suspects. How could they do that if everybody on the block matched?

I suggest you check your sources, and post them.

 

[BBB167893]

My thinking? Something wrong with my thinking being too constrained?

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I was merely reminding you of your OWN common admonition that one needs psychology if they are going to break this case.

I'm the one with the SFF, remember?

Pretty hard to forget!

While you are content to look only inside the house, as if it has no doors or windows.

I wouldn't say that.

While LE is content to wait for CODIS. I believe neither approach will work.

Agreed.

And I'm in the box? Thats a laugh.

You should sue Alice-in-Chains for royalties. (20 points to anyone who understands THAT reference!)

We have to take your word for it that CASKU is RDI here in 2009,

That I couldn't tell you. So, I'm not really asking anyone to take MY word for anything. What I will say is, one: they've never backed off of that position that I know of; two, if they are, they probably have pretty good reason.

which if true makes me doubt that a solution is anywhere close.

I could say the same about a LOT of people.

There is no evidence that unequivocally links PR or JR to the crime.

I would agree with that in a way. There's certainly no single piece of unequivocal evidence. But when the whole thing is taken all together, that's different.

There are many, many, many opportunities for this not to have been the case.

DAMN RIGHT! Rotten shame the Boulder DA's office didn't follow up on any of 'em!

PR's handwriting could've been a better match.

True, but it was probably the best they could get, considering...

The DNA found on JBR under her fingernails could've been from a parent instead of a strange male.

Unless it was blood or sperm, I don't see how that would help.

There could've been a past family incident that a family doctor, nurse, teacher, friend, or neighbor could've brought to light.

Depends on who you ask.

We have some traces of PR and JR on JBR but no traces of the crime scene on JR or PR.

Well, HOTYH, it might have helped if the police had actually saw fit to SEARCH THEM that day!

That is, no injury to JR or PR's hands or face despite the violence.

Why would there be? I'm completely deadly serious asking that.

The murder weapon could've been traced to the house or even to JR or PR's hands.

Like I said, it might have helped to search them that day.

This is just a partial list of 'coulda shoulda's'

I've got quite a list of my own there.

 

[BBB167893]

HOTYH, your inability to accept a scenario in which the DNA got there innocently despite the numerous examples given on here - often provided by rather eminent DNA experts - is a prime example why people might conclude your thinking is boxed in. Or the refinements on your theory that would make the perp easier to isolate that don't fit in with yout theory perfectly and which you therefore reject.

:clap:

RDI has no monopoly on restricted thinking and in terms of understanding nuances of behaviour and evidence, RDI is probably more flexible than IDI.

I can speak from personal experience on that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I was merely reminding you of your OWN common admonition that one needs psychology if they are going to break this case.



Pretty hard to forget!



I wouldn't say that.



Agreed.



You should sue Alice-in-Chains for royalties. (20 points to anyone who understands THAT reference!)



That I couldn't tell you. So, I'm not really asking anyone to take MY word for anything. What I will say is, one: they've never backed off of that position that I know of; two, if they are, they probably have pretty good reason.



I could say the same about a LOT of people.



I would agree with that in a way. There's certainly no single piece of unequivocal evidence. But when the whole thing is taken all together, that's different.
:boohoo:


DAMN RIGHT! Rotten shame the Boulder DA's office didn't follow up on any of 'em!
:boohoo:


True, but it was probably the best they could get, considering...
:boohoo:


Unless it was blood or sperm, I don't see how that would help.



Depends on who you ask.



Well, HOTYH, it might have helped if the police had actually saw fit to SEARCH THEM that day!
:boohoo:


Why would there be? I'm completely deadly serious asking that.
Uh, if JR's skin DNA had of turned up underneath JBR's fingernails, and JR had scratches. Or PR or anyone else. I would convict on that. RDI really really wants to write off the DNA under JBR's fingernails to the point of denying it even exists, and that is perfectly understandable. After all, if JBR fought back thats the first place to look for DNA. Far as I know, BPD WAS actually comparing suspects to this DNA, and that implies SOME level of quality for this DNA.


Like I said, it might have helped to search them that day.



I've got quite a list of my own there.

:boohoo:

 

[BBB167893]

Uh, if JR's skin DNA had of turned up underneath JBR's fingernails, and JR had scratches. Or PR or anyone else. I would convict on that.

Good to know. But that's not what I asked. I already knew what kind of things you were talking about. I asked why would there have been anything like that on them? More on that in a moment.

RDI really really wants to write off the DNA under JBR's fingernails to the point of denying it even exists, and that is perfectly understandable.

It's not RDI who has written it off.

After all, if JBR fought back thats the first place to look for DNA.

True enough, and those are the magic words: IF JB fought back. That's precisely my point. There's nothing to suggest that she did. Quite the opposite, actually.

Far as I know, BPD WAS actually comparing suspects to this DNA, and that implies SOME level of quality for this DNA.

Early on, they may have been. I don't know about afterwards.

:boohoo:

HOTYH, why do you do these things? I didn't say anything that people who worked the investigation have not said.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

True enough, and those are the magic words: IF JB fought back. That's precisely my point. There's nothing to suggest that she did. What?? Quite the opposite, actually.

The DNA under her fingernails suggests she fought back. This is an excellent example of what I said: RDI tends to disregard the DNA under her fingernails, to the point where it doesn't even exist!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, why do you do these things? I didn't say anything that people who worked the investigation have not said.

I dunno, maybe its when I read your post:

If only the DA followed up.
If only the R's were searched that day.
If only they could get more handwriting.

If only there was a smoking gun.

See what I mean?

 

[DeeDee249]

The DNA under her fingernails suggests she fought back. This is an excellent example of what I said: RDI tends to disregard the DNA under her fingernails, to the point where it doesn't even exist!

Why do you persist in beating this dead horse? There was NO skin, blood under her fingernails- hers or anyone else's. There was NO usable DNA under her nails. The coroner used tainted clippers to cut her nails. Anything found there could have belonged to the corpse in the next drawer.
And please don't bring up that false CNN report. This wouldn't be the first time. nor the last, that a national news organization got its facts wrong.

 

[cynic]

I don't consider 2 or 3 markers a match either. Where did you hear THAT?

COOPER: The DNA, apparently, that exists, a -- a spot of blood from her underwear. There was also DNA underneath the fingernails. But it wasn't conclusive.
KOBILINSKY: Well, it was, apparently, degraded. And, therefore, it...
COOPER: What does that mean exactly, degraded?
KOBILINSKY: Well, it means that the DNA was in very small quantity. And it also means that the DNA was fragmented.
That could happen for a number of reasons. But the main point is, they weren't able to -- to get any information from that particular DNA. And, similarly, there was one -- one of the two stains on the panties was also of low quality, or degraded, and, therefore, really didn't provide us with important information.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/24/acd.01.html


What was found in the investigation
DNA evidence from the JonBenet Ramsey murder:
• DNA from under her fingernails, poor quality.
• Foreign male DNA recovered from a spot of her blood in her panties, of only moderate quality.
• Foreign male DNA recovered from another spot of her blood in her underwear, with 10 genetic markers and considered of significant value.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4940501,00.html

DNA swiped from John Mark Karr after his arrest last week in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder might be irrelevant, in part because "something got screwed up" when samples were taken from the crime scene in 1996, a former investigator on the case said.

Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.
"The amount of DNA is small enough that it could exclude someone. But it could not go so far for the inclusion," Wise said.
http://www.dailycamera.com/archivesearch/ci_13061689


Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

To Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, the DNA in her underwear, what type of DNA was it? What type of DNA was under her fingernails?
KOBILINSKY: Well, you know, we don`t really know too much about the DNA under her fingernails because it was degraded, but we do know that people tend to scratch themselves. It may not indicate that she fought her attacker. But we do know that the DNA in the underpants apparently were two droplets of blood, one of which, again, was degraded and did not provide any information. It`s the other droplet that has provided information, and there is the presence of a male genetic profile in that specimen. And that`s the key. That is what has to be compared to John Mark Karr`s DNA.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/ng.01.html

Bob Grant, a former Adams County DA who helped investigate JonBenet’s death….
There were also DNA traces found under the child’s fingernails, but they were degraded and tests were inconclusive, Grant said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14441778/

(Lin) Wood said … He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/


I have consistently heard 2-3 markers, the only deviation I have ever seen has been by Lin Wood, and we of course have only his “word” on that.
The issue of the “quality” of DNA found under the fingernails has been seen across multiple forums. It’s really not considered to be of any value. Even LW has stopped spinning that old yarn.


Samples from forums:
Everything I have read has said that the fingernail dna only contained 2 complete markers and a partial of a 3rd. If that information is accurate, then the dna from the nails would have to be artifact imo.
[ame="http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578"]Questions about the DNA - Crime Library Message Boards[/ame]

On another note, Hudson's post brings to mind the fact that yes, who doesn't recall mame, et al, going on and on about there being male flesh and blood under the nails. Around that same time, I recall the Ramseys going on and on about the dna in the pants AND under the fingernails matched...and then...nothing....until now. I mean, everyone seemed to shut up and there was no mention of the fingernail dna. Did it finally occur to these people that they couldn't make such a statement because there were so few markers, or that the sample was so degraded (something they absolutely wouldn't admit to).
I'm just flabbergasted that talk on the fingernail dna seemed to cease completely and all the attention was drawn to the panty dna. And now this.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4691&page=2

Do not believe the cr*p the RST has spread about the fingernail DNA matching the panty DNA. There were only 2-3 viable markers in the fingernail DNA, meaning it was old and degraded. It is possible those 2-3 markers "matched" 2 or 3 markers in the panty DNA.
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7259"]http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7259[/ame]

The DNA under her fingernails only had three markers, not enough to compare with any other DNA.
The DNA in her panties had to undergo PCR amplification and too many markers were produced as a result of the amplification, so it's useless for comparison purposes, too.
No one doubts that the DNA taken from two places on her long johns matched, but those long johns were not laundered and that DNA could have gotten on them at any time, especially as JB was in the habit of calling for anyone, male or female to come and wipe her in the bathroom.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TERTGCH50S1EC9DCO/p8#c143

I believe the fingernail DNA had only two markers, which matched two of nine in the panty DNA.
http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&om=576&forum=DCForumID79

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why do you persist in beating this dead horse? There was NO skin, blood under her fingernails- hers or anyone else's. There was NO usable DNA under her nails. The coroner used tainted clippers to cut her nails. Anything found there could have belonged to the corpse in the next drawer.
And please don't bring up that false CNN report. This wouldn't be the first time. nor the last, that a national news organization got its facts wrong.

I was referring to the report where BPD was using the fingernail DNA to compare various suspects. It seems there WAS usable DNA under her nails after all.

Cynic I looked everywhere on your post and didn't find '2 or 3' markers authoritatively. Nice try though.

 

[cynic]

I was referring to the report where BPD was using the fingernail DNA to compare various suspects. It seems there WAS usable DNA under her nails after all.

Cynic I looked everywhere on your post and didn't find '2 or 3' markers authoritatively. Nice try though.

I’m afraid you are alone in clinging to the fingernail DNA.
A judge would have to clear the court room if anyone ever tried to present that “evidence” in court – there would be too much laughter.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I’m afraid you are alone in clinging to the fingernail DNA.
A judge would have to clear the court room if anyone ever tried to present that “evidence” in court – there would be too much laughter.

Nope. Not alone.

BPD used the fingernail DNA to compare suspects early on. Thats according to the news. You're trying very hard to eliminate the fingernail DNA evidence but it wont work. Its ridiculous the lengths RDI will go to in order to eliminate the fingernail DNA evidence. Granted it may not be enough to rule somebody in but they used it to rule people out. Therefore it is evidence, and you don't know that it does not belong to the owner of the CODIS DNA.

Besides, you're not finding 2 or 3 markers from a decent source, are you?

 

[Ravyn]

Nope. Not alone.

BPD used the fingernail DNA to compare suspects early on. Thats according to the news. You're trying very hard to eliminate the fingernail DNA evidence but it wont work. Its ridiculous the lengths RDI will go to in order to eliminate the fingernail DNA evidence. Granted it may not be enough to rule somebody in but they used it to rule people out. Therefore it is evidence, and you don't know that it does not belong to the owner of the CODIS DNA.

Besides, you're not finding 2 or 3 markers from a decent source, are you?

The fingernail DNA wasn't used by Bode just the longjohns....And honestly why go by finernail DNA if the same clippers was used on each nail....And what if the clippers was used before that...Maybe that is why LE said it had little limited value....So how does this eliminate anyone in or out of this case....

 

[madeleine]

I’m afraid you are alone in clinging to the fingernail DNA.
A judge would have to clear the court room if anyone ever tried to present that “evidence” in court – there would be too much laughter.

:clap:
But they don't care about what a judge would do or if it can be taken to court or not....they know no one will ever be charged in this case....IMO

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The fingernail DNA wasn't used by Bode just the longjohns....And honestly why go by finernail DNA if the same clippers was used on each nail....And what if the clippers was used before that...Maybe that is why LE said it had little limited value....So how does this eliminate anyone in or out of this case....

I don't know. You'd have to ask BPD. They're the ones using the fingernail DNA evidence to compare with people.

Would you feel better if the fingernail DNA was deemed completely useless and the subject dropped? Because I would understand that.