You, the jury

[WHITEFANG]

It's not surprising to find foreign DNA under one's nails, either.

Sure about that?

 

[BBB167893]

Sure about that?

Very sure.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Very sure.

Proof?

 

[BBB167893]

Proof?

It's common knowledge, Fang. At least among LE, it is. DNA is everywhere

But if you'd like an example, there's Sarah Cherry. As a very well-known lawyer and political speaker put it, quote:

There was DNA under Cherry's nails that wasn't [Dennis] Dechaine's. It doesn't prove Dechaine didn't murder Cherry. The world is fairly bristling with human DNA. If Cherry read a magazine, bought candy, or played with friends before arriving at her babysitting job that day, she might have picked up human DNA from any number of people.

 

[WHITEFANG]

It's common knowledge, Fang. At least among LE, it is. DNA is everywhere

But if you'd like an example, there's Sarah Cherry. As a very well-known lawyer and political speaker put it, quote:

There was DNA under Cherry's nails that wasn't [Dennis] Dechaine's. It doesn't prove Dechaine didn't murder Cherry. The world is fairly bristling with human DNA. If Cherry read a magazine, bought candy, or played with friends before arriving at her babysitting job that day, she might have picked up human DNA from any number of people.

Do you mean something like fibers?

 

[MurriFlower]

Do you mean something like fibers?

Exactly like fibers, except that it doesn't float around on the air! Well, that's probably not true either, because skin cells are shed constantly and float like dandruff. Lets just say that we don't have the ability to detect airborne DNA at present. Or, maybe we do, we just don't have the ability to determine the difference between touch and otherwise deposited DNA.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Exactly like fibers, except that it doesn't float around on the air! Well, that's probably not true either, because skin cells are shed constantly and float like dandruff. Lets just say that we don't have the ability to detect airborne DNA at present. Or, maybe we do, we just don't have the ability to determine the difference between touch and otherwise deposited DNA.

The Bode website is pretty clear. DNA has to be present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile using touch DNA methods. The website doesn't even discuss secondary transfer as a possibility. Touch DNA positive result is generally presented as evidence of a touch by the DNA owner.

Thats why they call it touch DNA.

Naturally and understandably, there's a lot of RDI backpedaling and damage control going on, even going so far as to suggest JBR deposited someone else's DNA but not her own, in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. Not just once, not just twice, but three different times. Its gone from ridiculous.

 

[cynic]

The Bode website is pretty clear. DNA has to be present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile using touch DNA methods. The website doesn't even discuss secondary transfer as a possibility. Touch DNA positive result is generally presented as evidence of a touch by the DNA owner.

Thats why they call it touch DNA.

Naturally and understandably, there's a lot of RDI backpedaling and damage control going on, even going so far as to suggest JBR deposited someone else's DNA but not her own, in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. Not just once, not just twice, but three different times. Its gone from ridiculous.

Seriously, how many times must we go over this? The innocent alternatives have been outlined countless times.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Seriously, how many times must we go over this? The innocent alternatives have been outlined countless times.

I guess until the point is made convincingly. Outlined but not proven.

 

[DeeDee249]

I guess until the point is made convincingly. Outlined but not proven.

Can't be proven till we have a donor identified.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I guess until the point is made convincingly. Outlined but not proven.

The DNA is not from a member of the Ramsey family and is almost definitely that of the killer, who would have presumably removed or otherwise handled the long johns, Ms. Lacy said.
The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family but could not say whether it came from the killer, Ms. Lacy said.

Close enough for me.

 

[DeeDee249]

That drop of blood was JB's. The male DNA was mixed with her DNA from that drop of blood, but there was no male blood.

I recall reading something about that DNA that was confusing- maybe someone here can explain it. It was something about if it was mixed or single and whether the parents (or other blood relatives) of JB could be excluded in one case but not the other. Sorry I can't be more specific, but maybe it will ring a bell for someone.

 

[WHITEFANG]

That drop of blood was JB's. The male DNA was mixed with her DNA from that drop of blood, but there was no male blood.

I recall reading something about that DNA that was confusing- maybe someone here can explain it. It was something about if it was mixed or single and whether the parents (or other blood relatives) of JB could be excluded in one case but not the other. Sorry I can't be more specific, but maybe it will ring a bell for someone.

The authorities determined then "that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family" but could not say whether it came from the killer, Ms. Lacy said.

 

[BBB167893]

Do you mean something like fibers?

No, sir; I do not. Literally every single thing we as humans do transfers DNA. That is not the case with fibers, not in the true sense.

 

[WHITEFANG]

No, sir; I do not. Literally every single thing we as humans do transfers DNA. That is not the case with fibers, not in the true sense.

Fibers are more abundant and more easily transferred.

 

[BBB167893]

Lets just say that we don't have the ability to detect airborne DNA at present. Or, maybe we do, we just don't have the ability to determine the difference between touch and otherwise deposited DNA.

You may be more right than you know. DNA science is a double-edged sword. The more sensitive the testing methods get, the more likely they are to pick up slag DNA.

I realize this may not be the place for it, but I'm not the only one who thinks that the tried-and-true old techniques of investigation are being swept aside by misplaced faith in the new techniques. I was watching Dr. Michael Baden on TV a little while back, and he said that when he broke into pathology, there wasn't all of the scientific stuff we have today and cops had to rely more on legwork, or as they say, shoe-leather. The mantra for cops across the country was that if you didn't get the perp within 48 hours, you might never get them. He thinks that not enough effort is given to running down leads because everyone's too busy waiting for test results.

Anybody else agree?

 

[BBB167893]

The Bode website is pretty clear. DNA has to be present in sufficient quantity to produce a profile using touch DNA methods. The website doesn't even discuss secondary transfer as a possibility. Touch DNA positive result is generally presented as evidence of a touch by the DNA owner.

Thats why they call it touch DNA.

Naturally and understandably, there's a lot of RDI backpedaling and damage control going on, even going so far as to suggest JBR deposited someone else's DNA but not her own, in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. Not just once, not just twice, but three different times. Its gone from ridiculous.

The only thing I'll say about that, HOTYH, is that for touch DNA, "sufficient" is far less than more established DNA testing methods. So there's nothing at all "ridiculous" in us pointing these things out.

 

[BBB167893]

The authorities determined then "that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family" but could not say whether it came from the killer, Ms. Lacy said.

You mean the media screwed up? Gosh, I'll bet THAT's never happened before!

 

[BBB167893]

Fibers are more abundant and more easily transferred.

At one point, one could be forgiven for thinking that. I'm afraid it's quite the reverse.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The only thing I'll say about that, HOTYH, is that for touch DNA, "sufficient" is far less than more established DNA testing methods. So there's nothing at all "ridiculous" in us pointing these things out.

Ad hominem. Let me know when you've got something, OK? I can wait.

The idea that someone besides the DNA owner unwittingly deposited someone elses DNA twice at a murder scene is absurd. The probability is really low in comparison to direct transfer, and thats why its an absurd idea.