Why the DNA may NOT be important

[bettybaby00]

Well I don’t expect to convince anyone (respectful disagreement, AK) regards the context of using DNA “exclusively” in ML’s exoneration action, I view the timing of ML’s pronouncement pointing to what ML obviously believed was the gold standard – a match of tDNA. Perhaps others here may have interest in this timing.

2003: Denver Lab retrieves the sample of DNA from the panties which was enhanced to 10 markers and entered into CODIS.
2007: Bode Labs scrapes the long-johns and retrieves the tDNA. (To my knowledge no one on this forum has viewed this lab report, so we do not know how many markers there were. While the following linked article from 2003 is somewhat dated it does give additional info on how defense attorneys might evaluate DNA analysis http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html )
2008: ML “exonerates” the Rs.

So when ML states in her press announcement “previous scientific exculpatory evidence,” one may conjecture, as I have, that she is referencing the distal 007-2 DNA, because it is her “AHA” moment of a match that an intruder touched the long-johns as well. If there had been other “scientific exculpatory evidence” prior to Bode’s analysis of the tDNA, ML would have used it ( ML was considered by many around her to be firmly an intruder theorist.) It’s for this reason I take the same view as Cynic that ML is basing her exoneration of the Rs on DNA, and this is how I interpret an understanding of the word “exclusively” used by Cynic and Krane.

Some here likely know what "reductio ad absudum" and “slippery slope’ arguments are. Those can be used humorously, and perhaps mockingly, and I believe that was Kolar’s intent on discussing “6 intruders” able to enter like circus midgets through the broken basement window. If any of us here echo his viewpoint of the “cagey 6,” it likely is a bit of a mocking stance. But these kind of arguments are not unique to either side - IDI or RDI.

Off topic, but here’s a humorous example of reductio ad absurdum: The pointy-haired boss in Dilbert announces a plan to rank all of the engineers 'from best to worst' so as 'to get rid of the bottom 10%.' Dilbert's co-worker Wally, included in the bottom 10%, responds that the plan is 'logically flawed' and proceeds to extend the range of his boss's argument. Wally asserts that the boss's plan, if made permanent, will mean continual dismissals (there will always be a bottom 10%) until there are fewer than 10 engineers and the boss will 'have to fire body parts instead of whole people.' The boss's logic will, Wally maintains (with a touch of hyperbole), lead to 'torsos and glands wandering around unable to use keyboards . . ., blood and bile everywhere!' These horrendous results will be the consequence of extending the boss's line of argument; hence, the boss's position should be rejected."(James Jasinksi, Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Sage, 2001)

All mho.

Gotta love Dilbert!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Kolar says no Ramsey DNA on panties or leggings:

Q. So did any of the DNA evidence lead back to any of the family members?
A (Kolar): There was nothing in the underwear or the longjohns that Jonbenet was wearing that had been tested that came back with family member’s...”
At 9:35 mark of video http://tinyurl.com/me5tz4m
...

AK

Thanks for posting that. Even though I don't think Kolar is even close at least he acknowledges the fact that there is NO DNA from the Ramseys.

If there was any DNA From the Ramseys that would have been game over for them.

DNA is still the key in this case. If you don't believe that you only have to look at the evidence and see that if they took it to trial and there was DNA in the panties and on the clothing that matched an unknown person and they tried to say a Ramsey did this, It would be an acquittal. If they had Ramsey DNA they would have charged and convicted them.

That DNA is key to this case. The rest is speculation but that DNA says, Someone was there and assaulted this child and it was NOT a Ramsey.

 

[2 percent]

Thanks for posting that. Even though I don't think Kolar is even close at least he acknowledges the fact that there is NO DNA from the Ramseys.

If there was any DNA From the Ramseys that would have been game over for them.

DNA is still the key in this case. If you don't believe that you only have to look at the evidence and see that if they took it to trial and there was DNA in the panties and on the clothing that matched an unknown person and they tried to say a Ramsey did this, It would be an acquittal. If they had Ramsey DNA they would have charged and convicted them.

That DNA is key to this case. The rest is speculation but that DNA says, Someone was there and assaulted this child and it was NOT a Ramsey.

The DNA in this case reminds me of the study of black holes; to really understand them you have to study the things around them.

The DA refers to a DNA report clearing the Ramseys, doesn't explain or release the report
The family lawyer claims a sample recently entered in to codis will solve the case and absolve the Ramseys, then those pesky enhancement rumors and partial-profile-only-good-for-elimination is discovered
An investigator oft quoted concerning DNA on tjis site is asked to look into the case and appears to be altering the status quo of DNA understanding in this case, yet despite all of that suspects a Ramsey, not an intruder.

If you study the behavior of those around the case most recently, an interesting pattern is emerging

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The DNA in this case reminds me of the study of black holes; to really understand them you have to study the things around them.

The DA refers to a DNA report clearing the Ramseys, doesn't explain or release the report
The family lawyer claims a sample recently entered in to codis will solve the case and absolve the Ramseys, then those pesky enhancement rumors and partial-profile-only-good-for-elimination is discovered
An investigator oft quoted concerning DNA on tjis site is asked to look into the case and appears to be altering the status quo of DNA understanding in this case, yet despite all of that suspects a Ramsey, not an intruder.

If you study the behavior of those around the case most recently, an interesting pattern is emerging

DNA is not a black hole .It is proof that someone was there. All the falderal and all the pontification does not change the fact that DNA clears the Ramseys in this case. The FBI has it on file. If it pointed to a Ramsey it would not have been a secret.
People can hate ML or AH but in the end the evidence when it comes to the DNA is clear and concise.
It is one thing to not like the Ramseys. It is another to ignore evidence that points to someone else entirely with DNA.

 

[Tawny]

Ignoring everything that has been posted that clearly states the DNA is likely unrelated and not reliable and not even a complete sample is somehow better? There are two sides to this coin. One side is posting evidence and links and statements that plainly state the DNA cannot be relied upon as evidence, and the other side is ignoring all of that and insisting it is the only evidence that matters.

Impasse.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ignoring everything that has been posted that clearly states the DNA is likely unrelated and not reliable and not even a complete sample is somehow better? There are two sides to this coin. One side is posting evidence and links and statements that plainly state the DNA cannot be relied upon as evidence, and the other side is ignoring all of that and insisting it is the only evidence that matters.

Impasse.

The only place the DNA is unrelated and unreliable is here. The FBI apparently disagrees.

 

[bettybaby00]

The FBI disagrees with what?



Eta: NVM I shouldn't eve ask.

 

[Tawny]

The only place the DNA is unrelated and unreliable is here. The FBI apparently disagrees.

Then please link us to this information, because there have been a ton of links and information to back up what we're saying.

 

[Venom]

I suppose it's just the fact that the 007-2 DNA is in codis. That's my guess.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Then please link us to this information, because there have been a ton of links and information to back up what we're saying.

And there are a ton to show that the DNA is in CODIS. Feel free to google.

 

[Tawny]

Being in CODIS doesn't mean it helps anything. It just means they squeaked out enough information to put it into a database.

Is that all you have to go on?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Being in CODIS doesn't mean it helps anything. It just means they squeaked out enough information to put it into a database.

Is that all you have to go on?

No it means that it is recognized as valid and accepted evidence that points to a suspect. They don't collect DNA for the heck of it. They have it because it puts someone there.

It has become laughable at the attempt to deny real evidence and yet build a case against PR because she read a book, or was a pageant queen.

Sure, throw out the DNA and by all means convict her for being southern.

 

[Venom]

Just because it's in codis doesn't mean it is from an intruder. Maybe a person of interest, but to claim it's (remember folks it's a partial microscopic sample to begin with) definitely from an intruder is a stretch. Remember there are 5 other "intruders" with ALL the DNA evidence. I'm sure that those other 5 can be dismissed as innocent transfer, so what's to say this one couldn't be? It's not a far stretch to touch the crotch of panties and then the band of longjohns to pull them up. I'm not saying that's what happened but it is possible.
Why is it laughable to be skeptical of a partial microscopic sample when many have provided links as for reasons to be skeptical? I must have missed the joke..... I thought all our theories and thoughts should be handled with respect. :shrug:

Jmo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just because it's in codis doesn't mean it is from an intruder. Maybe a person of interest, but to claim it's (remember folks it's a partial microscopic sample to begin with) definitely from an intruder is a stretch. Remember there are 5 other "intruders" with ALL the DNA evidence. I'm sure that those other 5 can be dismissed as innocent transfer, so what's to say this one couldn't be? It's not a far stretch to touch the crotch of panties and then the band of longjohns to pull them up. I'm not saying that's what happened but it is possible.
Why is it laughable to be sceptical of a partial microscopic sample when many have provided links as for reasons to be sceptical? I must have missed the joke.....

Jmo

DNA in her panties on the night she dies and touch dna that matched the dna in her panties on the pants she was wearing. That is kind of a gameover scenario.

It is really comical the amount of stretching that comes to try and make the DNA irrelevant. It is important and a key to the answer in this case.

 

[2 percent]

DNA in her panties on the night she dies and touch dna that matched the dna in her panties on the pants she was wearing. That is kind of a gameover scenario.

It is really comical the amount of stretching that comes to try and make the DNA irrelevant. It is important and a key to the answer in this case.

You're betting on DNA...fine.
But if ohe part of that DNA is discredited, it's over for an intruder.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You're betting on DNA...fine.
But if ohe part of that DNA is discredited, it's over for an intruder.

No. The DNA is the biggest part but there is enough to point to an intruder without it.

 

[Meara]

The bigger problem for RDI is not just that there is DNA that points to an intruder but that there is NO RAMSEY DNA there.

DNA tells the story in this case from both ends.

Hm. Isn't it true that there was no Ramsey DNA found on the ransom note, even though both John and Patsy said they had handled it? If so - and that's what I recall - doesn't that mean they could also have touched JBR's pants and leggings that night without leaving DNA?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Hm. Isn't it true that there was no Ramsey DNA found on the ransom note, even though both John and Patsy said they had handled it? If so - and that's what I recall - doesn't that mean they could also have touched JBR's pants and leggings that night without leaving DNA?

I don't speculate here. I go with the evidence that is available.

 

[DeeDee249]

Kolar says no Ramsey DNA on panties or leggings:

Q. So did any of the DNA evidence lead back to any of the family members?
A (Kolar): There was nothing in the underwear or the longjohns that Jonbenet was wearing that had been tested that came back with family member’s...”
At 9:35 mark of video http://tinyurl.com/me5tz4m
...

AK

This in itself has to be a lie. Patsy Ramsey claimed she pulled the longjohns on JB that night. Of course, that is only her word, which is worthless, IMO.
However, JR is a different story- he was SEEN by several people, including Det Linda Arndt, to be holding JB's stiff body around the waist when he carried her up from the basement. He was not wearing gloves. His DNA had to be there. So for that statement to be true---well...it isn't possible.

 

[Mama2JML]

This in itself has to be a lie. Patsy Ramsey claimed she pulled the longjohns on JB that night. Of course, that is only her word, which is worthless, IMO.
However, JR is a different story- he was SEEN by several people, including Det Linda Arndt, to be holding JB's stiff body around the waist when he carried her up from the basement. He was not wearing gloves. His DNA had to be there. So for that statement to be true---well...it isn't possible.

Actually, it is quite possible...

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...-literature-help-answer-some-common-questions