Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Linda7NJ]

The killer brought in tissues? Good grief. Please tell me you’re joking.

...



AK

He had to have something to wrap the pineapple he brought in...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[2 percent]

No, you don’t know that. You just made it up. A few people have gone through that window – Smit, BPD officers, at least one forum poster (not this forum!), etc; but I have never seen anyone claim that fibers were left behind by any of them. Nor is there any reason to believe that any fibers would be left. In fact, I’m not aware of any cases where fiber evidence was obtained from a window used for a b’n’e – not saying that it’s never happened (it probably has), but there’s no reason to say that it would have happened here.
...

AK

The decided lack of mention of fibers should red flag you.
If no fibers were found, Smit had every reason to avoid the topic. No fibers when fibers were expected means his pet theory was wrong. We already know he had problem selling the theory since he couldn't re enact it and, sickeningly, his ego was on the line.

 

[Venom]

Here is the bit about PR not remembering the tissues.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-kleenix.htm

 

[2 percent]

He had to have something to wrap the pineapple he brought in...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Why might DNA be unimportant?

Well, let's see. If we have not enough to complete markers, is it possible that the incomplete DNA would only prove a matriarchal link (which would thereby be JBR's or PR's DNA)? Matrilinear DNA that is incomplete would presume any relative on the mother's side (only the female "tail", if you will) could possible be the guilty party.

And let's see some more...
If we have DNA (incomplete) that infers a minor who has been "legal'd up" and immune from criminal sentencing due to juvenile laws of the state of CO, and you can't press charges---what good would it be to get a comparison DNA? It would'nt be any good. Not that you'd be allowed to anyway. Nope. In this second scenario that I've presented, it is non-prosecutorial.

...just sayin'....

:twocents:

 

[Theonly1]

She had more DNA under her dirty nails than a group of bridge players. That tells you that unless you believe there was a troupe of intruders, then you cannot trust the crap accumulated under those nails.

 

[Darlene733510]

ATOH - that is what I have been saying. If the DNA belonged to BR, we would never know, and because of his age he could not be prosecuted. When ML exonerated the Ramsey's, I believe that pertained to JR and PR only.

 

[Theonly1]

Either she had not washed her paws in a spell OR the coroner used dirty fingernail clippers. One is supposed to use a new clipper for each nail. Whatever the reason, those nails are likely not going to be the smoking gun. There are too many other totally smoking guns and they were not wielded by an intruder, IMHO.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

He had to have something to wrap the pineapple he brought in...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Best. Post. Ever.

 

[Anti-K]

Why is that so out of bounds? We have magic non shedding pants, but dropped tissues are impossible?

Everyone needs to step back and assess their emotional investment sometimes.

Deep breath...

Who said anything about impossible? And, no one is talking about “dropped tissues.” Venon was referring to the box of tissue that was on the table, near the bowl w/pineapple and the glass/tea bag.

The only one suggesting magic pants is you.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

Either she had not washed her paws in a spell OR the coroner used dirty fingernail clippers. One is supposed to use a new clipper for each nail. Whatever the reason, those nails are likely not going to be the smoking gun. There are too many other totally smoking guns and they were not wielded by an intruder, IMHO.

Well we already know the coroner used dirty clippers. He admitted it. Proper procedure called for a fresh, sterile clipper for EACH nail. This coroner used not only used the same clipper for all 10 nails, he used the same clipper on several bodies- without cleaning or sterilizing in between. No matter what was ever found under her nails, it would have never stood up in any court.
As for her hand washing habits- Patsy admitted JB didn't like to wash her hands, and couldn't remember when she had last washed them or had a bath.

 

[Mama2JML]

Well we already know the coroner used dirty clippers. He admitted it. Proper procedure called for a fresh, sterile clipper for EACH nail. This coroner used not only used the same clipper for all 10 nails, he used the same clipper on several bodies- without cleaning or sterilizing in between. No matter what was ever found under her nails, it would have never stood up in any court.
As for her hand washing habits- Patsy admitted JB didn't like to wash her hands, and couldn't remember when she had last washed them or had a bath.

BBM

Not true.

 

[Anti-K]

he had to have something to wrap the pineapple he brought in...


sent from my iphone using tapatalk

...

Ak

 

[Anti-K]

The decided lack of mention of fibers should red flag you.
If no fibers were found, Smit had every reason to avoid the topic. No fibers when fibers were expected means his pet theory was wrong. We already know he had problem selling the theory since he couldn't re enact it and, sickeningly, his ego was on the line.

Before I get drawn into this too far, I want to restate that I do not think that the killer used the basement window as an entry or exit point (at, least not that night).
.

No one claims that an entry would have necessarily left fiber evidence but you.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Here is the bit about PR not remembering the tissues.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-kleenix.htm

Thank you, Venom.
I do remember this and I knew exactly what you were talking about.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Why might DNA be unimportant?

Well, let's see. If we have not enough to complete markers, is it possible that the incomplete DNA would only prove a matriarchal link (which would thereby be JBR's or PR's DNA)? Matrilinear DNA that is incomplete would presume any relative on the mother's side (only the female "tail", if you will) could possible be the guilty party.

And let's see some more...
If we have DNA (incomplete) that infers a minor who has been "legal'd up" and immune from criminal sentencing due to juvenile laws of the state of CO, and you can't press charges---what good would it be to get a comparison DNA? It would'nt be any good. Not that you'd be allowed to anyway. Nope. In this second scenario that I've presented, it is non-prosecutorial.

...just sayin'....

:twocents:

Matrilinear DNA? I think you might be talking about mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA and the DNA in question (CODIS and tDNA samples) are two different things. They might have used Mitochondrial when they examined the ancillary hair; but my memory’s not helping me out with this one.

As far as I know, mitochondrial DNA is sort of a “last resort;” it’s what you turn to when there is no DNA, or the DNA available is unusable.

The CODIS sample is sufficient to identify someone to a high degree of certainty. It is sufficient to exclude persons to one hundred percent certainty.
The DNA does not and cannot infer a minor. The DNA is not Ramsey DNA. They have been excluded.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

She had more DNA under her dirty nails than a group of bridge players. That tells you that unless you believe there was a troupe of intruders, then you cannot trust the crap accumulated under those nails.

What do you base this on? I’ve read through a few studies, and a couple articles and nothing I’ve seen would substantiate your claim. According to Kolar she had DNA from two unidentified males, and one female (probably herself!). That’s not an unusual finding, and the two male samples came from the same person then the DNA found beneath her fingernails would be well within the norm.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

ATOH - that is what I have been saying. If the DNA belonged to BR, we would never know, and because of his age he could not be prosecuted. When ML exonerated the Ramsey's, I believe that pertained to JR and PR only.

It doesn’t belong to BR. The DNA does not match any of the Ramseys or any of the other 200 other people compared.
...

AK

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Matrilinear DNA? I think you might be talking about mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA and the DNA in question (CODIS and tDNA samples) are two different things. They might have used Mitochondrial when they examined the ancillary hair; but my memory’s not helping me out with this one.

As far as I know, mitochondrial DNA is sort of a “last resort;” it’s what you turn to when there is no DNA, or the DNA available is unusable.

The CODIS sample is sufficient to identify someone to a high degree of certainty. It is sufficient to exclude persons to one hundred percent certainty.
The DNA does not and cannot infer a minor. The DNA is not Ramsey DNA. They have been excluded.
...

AK

Yes AK....I used matrilinear for clarity sake in lieu of mitochondrial so that people may be able to follow the train of thought that I was presenting. So we don't really know if they utilized mitochondrial methodology analyzing any of the DNA?

Also, I have read numerous times that DNA is not about excluding.

 

[Theonly1]

What do you base this on? I’ve read through a few studies, and a couple articles and nothing I’ve seen would substantiate your claim. According to Kolar she had DNA from two unidentified males, and one female (probably herself!). That’s not an unusual finding, and the two male samples came from the same person then the DNA found beneath her fingernails would be well within the norm.
...

AK

Perhaps you should reread the Kolar book. Also, try to see the humor and twists he has to contort the scene into to make the intruder theory match evidence.