Why the DNA may NOT be important

[BOESP]

That is great.. They collected DNA from many people. Those people don't match the DNA. That is simple. If they did there would be a valid suspect.

There is no way around the DNA in CODIS. It is there to match someone that was there that night. If it did we would not be here today.

BBM. Just because the public isn't aware of "a valid suspect" doesn't mean there isn't one.

BBM #2. With due respect, that statement shows a misunderstanding of what DNA can and can not do.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM. Just because the public isn't aware of "a valid suspect" doesn't mean there isn't one.

BBM #2. With due respect, that statement shows a misunderstanding of what DNA can and can not do.

With all due respect back, I do understand. And I am not going to accept a sweeping theory of the DNA doesn't matter in this case just because people don't want it too.

MOO

 

[BOESP]

And? I am not sure how that negates the DNA that IS in CODIS. Do you know how many cases that have DNA in CODIS are just waiting for the right suspect? Just because they are waiting for a match does not negate the weight of the DNA. WE know it is not one of the R's. The DNA does not match them. That is simple.

DNA is not negotiable. It is what it is. IT is used to solve crimes. It is used to exclude people.

No one is negating the DNA in CODIS. Neither should it be promoted as the solution. It is one piece of information that needs more information before it becomes meaningful, either to include or exclude as evidence in JonBenet's case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No one is negating the DNA in CODIS. Neither should it be promoted as the solution. It is one piece of information that needs more information before it becomes meaningful, either to include or exclude as evidence in JonBenet's case.

In this case that DNA is key. There is no doubt about it. Just be a simple measure of evidence. Imo


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Anti-K]

Not quite so. Some of the dna in this case was LCN.

Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I imagine others have addressed this by now, but the DNA in the Jonbenet case was NOT LCN. BODE claims to have processed the tDNA in the “normal fashion.” See the Dr Krane interview on Tricia’s radioblog for more info.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

How come the actual full report was never released?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are “actual full reports” ever released except when a case goes to trial? Don’t you think it likely that the DA and/or BPD have the “actual full reports?”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It is reasonable to assume that DNA under JonBenet's fingernails could easily self-transfer to her long johns and panties. The same can be said for DNA from under Patsy, John or Burke's fingernails. There are innumerable ways the four Ramseys, or anyone, could pick up artifact DNA and transfer it.

It is reasonable to assume the garment could have been mishandled since in 1996 maintaining a chain of custody was a priority but handling evidence to maintain pristine DNA evidence was not understood like it is today.

The Codis sample had to be amplified before CODIS would accept it. It was not a full, native profile and it reportedly was degraded.

It is unreasonable to decide guilt or innocence on such indirect evidence and even more so to decide guilt or innocence only on one piece of evidence, especially that which is questionable. Saying the TDNA and the minute mixed sample in the panty belong to the killer is ludicrous without other direct evidence that goes along with those samples.

No, it is not reasonable to believe that “DNA under JonBenet's fingernails could easily self-transfer to her long johns and panties.” DNA under fingernails is not so easily transferred because it is under. If was going to be transferring the DNA of others than it would likely be her parent’s DNA, or her brother’s or the White’s, etc. – someone she was known to have been in recent contact with.

Also, if Kolar is right than the DNA under her fingernails does not match the DNA on her panties and the tDNA on her leggings. This makes your scenario even less likely.

It might seem reasonable to think that the garment could have been mishandled, but it is not reasonable to assume that it was mishandled. In fact, I think it is reasonable to assume the opposite – lessons learned by everyone tanks to the OJ trial! I think that BPD did a much better job of collecting and reserving evidence than most people give them credit for.

If CODSI accepted the sample than it must have been a good sample. Profiles are derived from degraded samples as a matter of routine. Degraded DNA is simply fragmented DNA – as long as the fragments targeted are intact the results are going to be good. Regardless, the fact is that this sample meets the CODIS standard.

The CODIS sample and matching tDNA exculpatory evidence – because of the type of assault and where the samples were found – and they represent a person who must be identified and investigated.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I disagree. It is quite relevant in establishing guidelines for analyzing the usefulness of DNA of various quality. The JonBenet DNA had to be amplified in one instance and it was Touch DNA in the other. The principles are the same and the article clearly uses the word "touch."

DNA is ALWAYS amplified. ALWAYS.

DNA and touch DNA are the SAME THING – “touch” refers to the collection method, not the DNA itself and not to the processing and/or analysis.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

DNA is ALWAYS amplified. ALWAYS.

DNA and touch DNA are the SAME THING – “touch” refers to the collection method, not the DNA itself and not to the processing and/or analysis.
...

AK

Touch DNA is primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. DNA transferred or deposited from skin cells and DNA from bodily fluids is a whole nother animal.

The type of DNA collected is not determined by the method of collecting the sample.

 

[Venom]

Once again I see the big If qualifier has been overlooked in the steadfast DNA argument.

 

[Linda7NJ]

THe DNA puts that person in the house, But I agree other evidence will then come into play also. But you can not ignore the DNA or say it is not relevant because it is or there would be no CODIS. There is a reason they collect DNA from crime scenes so they can match suspects to other crimes.



It is real and accurate Evidence.

I disagree.
The DNA put someone handling those, new out of the package, panties. There is no time stamp on DNA.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the DNA wasn't an artifact from the manufacturing process by the sewing process or packaging and simply transferred by the person putting them on JonBenet that night right before that same person pulled her leggings back on.

No reason at all. It actually IMO makes far more sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Are “actual full reports” ever released except when a case goes to trial? Don’t you think it likely that the DA and/or BPD have the “actual full reports?”

...



AK

I believe Kolar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I disagree.
The DNA put someone handling those, new out of the package, panties. There is no time stamp on DNA.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the DNA wasn't an artifact from the manufacturing process by the sewing process or packaging and simply transferred by the person putting them on JonBenet that night right before that same person pulled her leggings back on.

No reason at all. It actually IMO makes far more sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may disagree but the FBI did not. They need to know who that DNA belongs to and it is not innocent DNA or they would not have done that.

I have never ever seen a case where dna is found and people say.. Nah.. that belongs to a worker in Malaysia . Except here.

 

[Mama2JML]

Touch DNA is primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. DNA transferred or deposited from skin cells and DNA from bodily fluids is a whole nother animal.

The type of DNA collected is not determined by the method of collecting the sample.

Primary transfer occurs when an individual deposits DNA (via blood, semen, saliva, epithelium, etc.) directly on an object. Studies indicate that secondary & tertiary transfer of DNA occurs in much lower quantities than the amounts of DNA analyzed in this case.

 

[Mama2JML]

I disagree.
The DNA put someone handling those, new out of the package, panties. There is no time stamp on DNA.

Okay, but then, in 2008, the same DNA profile was isolated from TWO locations on the pants the victim was wearing. The amount of genetic material collected on both occasions negates the possibility of innocent transfer.

 

[Linda7NJ]

You may disagree but the FBI did not. They need to know who that DNA belongs to and it is not innocent DNA or they would not have done that.



I have never ever seen a case where dna is found and people say.. Nah.. that belongs to a worker in Malaysia . Except here.

It would be wonderful to know definitively whose DNA it is. Then and only then could the source be ruled in or out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Okay, but then, in 2008, the same DNA profile was isolated from TWO locations on the pants the victim was wearing. The amount of genetic material collected on both occasions negates the possibility of innocent transfer.

I disagree. Some people are prolific shedders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aussiesheila2]

I disagree. It is quite relevant in establishing guidelines for analyzing the usefulness of DNA of various quality. The JonBenet DNA had to be amplified in one instance and it was Touch DNA in the other. The principles are the same and the article clearly uses the word "touch."

The article not relevant as we don’t need to consider the usefulness of the Ramsey DNA at all. We know what the usefulness of the Ramsey DNA was. WRT the panties and longjohns DNA there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe it was anything other than high quality, non-degraded DNA, potentially extremely useful. All we need to do is find a match to determine if the person it matches could have been present in the Ramsey house that night.

A DNA sample is referred to as LCN when there is less DNA present for the sample to be processed in the routine way. Amongst other things it has to be put through further cycles of PCR amplification such that errors can creep in and results become less reliable. None of the Ramsey DNA had to be treated in this way.

Of course both the Ramsey DNA samples were amplified. That is how the test works. DNA samples are put through 28 cycles of PCR. During each PCR cycle the regions of the DNA containing the target STRs are preferentially amplified relative to the rest of the DNA and are tagged with fluorescing compounds enabling them to be visualized on the electropherogram.

You say the article you reference mentioned “touch”. It may well have, all LCN DNA might be “touch” DNA but not all “touch” DNA is LCN DNA.

 

[BOESP]

Primary transfer occurs when an individual deposits DNA (via blood, semen, saliva, epithelium, etc.) directly on an object. Studies indicate that secondary & tertiary transfer of DNA occurs in much lower quantities than the amounts of DNA analyzed in this case.

Whether the DNA was first-, second- or third-hand transfer was not the issue. The issue was the incorrect statement that Touch DNA and any other DNA were the same. Bodily fluids are not the same as Touch DNA.

 

[BOESP]

Okay, but then, in 2008, the same DNA profile was isolated from TWO locations on the pants the victim was wearing. The amount of genetic material collected on both occasions negates the possibility of innocent transfer.

The DNA in the panty portion was, according to published public reports, a degraded sample that contained two profiles that were mixed, one of which was amplified so it would be acceptable for submission to CODIS. The other partial profile, iirc, matched JonBenet.

Without having seen the full original reports I choose to rely on what Kolar published. He has viewed much of the evidence and stated there are samples of unsourced DNA belonging to six people. I find it unreasonable to believe six unknown people were in that household that night handling JonBenet and that her parents didn't know anything about it.