Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 111
  1. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    The fact that the DNA is degraded ALONE should be sufficient to prove that it was not left at the time of the crime and has NOTHING to do with the crime.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  2. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    The fact that the DNA is degraded ALONE should be sufficient to prove that it was not left at the time of the crime and has NOTHING to do with the crime.
    Yes, DeeDee, you would think so, wouldn't you!

    But we're dealing with Boulder and Alex Hunter, and Mary Keenan Lacy, and a whole host of other corrupt and IDIotic individuals! Instead of looking at the truth, they'd rather manufacture an intruder out of partial and degraded DNA!
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 7, 2013, 2:04 am at Thu Feb 7 2:04:05 UTC 2013.

  3. #75

    Default

    I love visuals, as they are an easier way for me to learn! Cherokee, thank you as that helped me understand what you taught me Monday night, even more so!!

    This is what is so scary about touch DNA imho. The results you get are based upon the interpretation of the party 'reporting' the results, vs the person running the test. Scary when you think that someone could be convicted of a crime based on strictly 'touching' someone.

  4. #76

    Default

    Sunnie, that's why "touch DNA" is considered experimental and not allowed in US court rooms!

    Because of the possibility of innocent transfer and contamination, it IS dangerous to assume anything about "touch DNA," and that's why it is currently not admissable for evidence in a trial! But hey, that didn't stop Mary Keenan Lacy from "exonerating" the Ramseys based on "touch DNA"!

    Furthermore, now Lacy claims she didn't "know" there was more than one donor of "touch DNA"! It's right there in the report according to Kolar's book. Obviously, Lacy only took what she wanted people to believe and left the rest.

    Lacy manipulated.
    Lacy exonerated.
    Lacy lied.
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 7, 2013, 2:48 am at Thu Feb 7 2:48:26 UTC 2013.

  5. #77

    Default

    What most of the general public doesn't realize, and the media won't investigate, is that Lacy did NOT use conventional DNA analysis to exonerate the Ramseys! Lacy used experimental "touch DNA" that is not allowed as evidence because it is so controversial and liable to contamination.

    THIS is the DNA "evidence" used by Lacy to exonerate her friends, the Ramseys! Remember, Lacy said she did not want to damage her relationship with the Ramseys by investigating them further or asking for medical records. What ethical DA refuses to investigate suspects because they don't want to damage their relationship with them?!!

    Here is the absolute truth: the Ramseys HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED by DNA!

    They have been given a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD by their personal friend, DA Mary Keenan Lacy, who REFUSED to answer any questions about that exoneration OR release any information regarding the DNA analysis for examination and duplication!

    Think about it: the crime scene was staged, the ransom note was fake, Burke had problems no one wants to talk about, JonBenet had been sexually (digitally) molested before the night of her death, and the Ramseys refused to cooperate with investigators! To top that off, the Grand Jury indicted them after hearing a year's worth of testimony, but Alex Hunter refused to prosecute!

    There was no intruder. John and Patsy failed to protect JonBenet from sexual abuse, and when she was fatally hit in the head that Christmas night (possibly by Burke in a fit of rage), John and Patsy covered up what happened. For them, the truth was worse than living a lie. They had already lost one child; they didn't want to lose another and lose the illusion of a perfect family living the perfect life.
    Last edited by Cherokee; February 7, 2013, 2:49 am at Thu Feb 7 2:49:29 UTC 2013.

  6. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Sunnie, that's why "touch DNA" is considered experimental and not allowed in US court rooms!

    Because of innocent transfer and contamination, it IS dangerous to assume anything about "touch DNA," and that's why it is currently not admissable for evidence in a trial! But hey, that didn't stop Mary Keenan Lacy from "exonerating" the Ramseys based on "touch DNA"!

    Furthermore, now Lacy claims she didn't "know" there was more than one donor of "touch DNA"! It's right there in the report according to Kolar's book. Obviously, Lacy only took what she wanted people to believe and left the rest.

    Lacy manipulated.
    Lacy exonerated.
    Lacy lied.
    I am very happy to hear that touch DNA is not allowed in a court room. The implications of how it could be used are scary beyond belief. Money talks in court rooms throughout the world. This, unfortunately is not only an American problem.

    As for Mary Lacy and Alex Hunter, Lin Wood, among others, find themselves in need of a good team of lawyers!

    Cherokee, thanks again for all the great information!

  7. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    The graphic below illustrates several points Iíd like to make about DNA and the ďtouch DNAĒ found on JonBenetís clothing, the wrist bindings and ligature.

    In the first half of the graphic, I used the names of a few FFJ posters (instead of the actual individuals who contributed the DNA) and took their ďDNAĒ to 13 markers. As I stated before, 12-13 markers is considered the minimum for accurate DNA testing. The top section of the graphic demonstrates how a DNA sample SHOULD look if the DNA was fresh, non-degraded, and viable. By the way, this DNA was collected only using a cheek swab.

    The second half of the graphic illustrates how a DNA lab could have differentiated between the DNA of seven separate individuals, even with some of their DNA markers missing.

    For instance, letís say BobC is the person who donated the barely 10-marker DNA sample found in the Distal Stain 007-2 on JonBenetís clothing, so I have removed all but 10 markers from his analysis.

    We have been told all of the rest of the ďtouch DNAĒ is less than 10 markers, so for the next four individuals, Cherokee, Cynic, DeeDee and Elle, I have removed all but seven markers. We know at least one ďtouch DNAĒ sample was of seven markers, and Iím being very generous in my illustration to show three other samples at seven markers.

    Next, we know one ďtouch DNAĒ sample consisted of six markers and another was made up of only five markers, so I have taken away all but six from Heymom and five from Koldkase.

    As you look at the gaping holes in the second half of the graphic, you can see why it is so frustrating to hear Mary Lacy (and other Ramsey apologists) say the partial, degraded DNA is enough to be a live, flesh and blood intruder! Furthermore, we know that there is partial DNA from at least five different men and one woman! It is contaminant and artifact, pure and simple!

    How do we know these partial samples are from six different individuals and not one partial and degraded intruder?

    If you look at the second half of the graphic, you will see that even with the few numbers available at each loci, none of the individuals match completely. That is because there is at least one number in each sample that is different from the others at the standard loci that were tested. Even though this is merely an illustration, the same method applies to DNA labs. They compare the DNA numbers at certain loci to determine if there is a match or not. One non-matching number is enough to say the sample comes from a separate individual.
    Heymom will heretofore be contacted only through her lawyer. She will make no statements about her presence at the crime scene or any of her DNA being located anywhere in the world.

    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  8. #80

    Default

    Cherokee,

    First of all, thank you very-very much for the lesson I wouldn't be able to learn on my own! Very interesting. Even after reading Kolar's book and hear you and him talking about, I couldn't clearly understand the details which leads you (and now us!) to the conclusion you knew right away. Can you imagine how many people who did read Kolar's book has the same 'what is it mean'? reaction.

    On the large scale, the knowledge of DNA and touch-DNA opens alot of appotunities for ordinarly people in the future, especially in medical DIAGNOSTIC field, at the minimum. So, the more we (ordinarly patients) educates ourself - the more we can accept or reject the prescribed by doctor treatment. Maybe soon, the subject of DNA/touch-DNA would be in school program....but today, we are not there yet... So, where I'm going with it?

    AH and ML are corrupted individuals, period. However, I'm sure that their knowledge of DNA/touch-DNA at that time was close to zero. So, they relied on experts like you, right? Someone who's knowledgable and honest. From what I did read in Kolar book, looks to me that someone wasn't telling ML the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' about the lab result.

    And here I comes to the main point of this post (sorry, for taking few detours here.... Who's responsible of feeding wrong (and/or incomplete) information to DA? What's the name of the people who interpreted the result of DNA/touch-DNA analysis? Do we know their names (in addition to the name in Kolar book)?

    If ML cannot be prosecuted for the wreckless actions then I'm sure her DNA expert advisors SHOULD be. And if laboratory who produced these result doesn't want to get 'black eye' in pulicity then this lab and people who works with JBR samples and signed their names in report, should admit their wrong doing in WRITING, TODAY. I think public needs to know the truth. And it'll definately NOT come from ML....so, we need another way to retrieve it.

    Long shot...but maybe it worth it to try!???

    jmo

  9. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Heymom will heretofore be contacted only through her lawyer. She will make no statements about her presence at the crime scene or any of her DNA being located anywhere in the world.



    I remember a year or two ago at Websleuths, when Cynic, OTG and UKGuy were talking about tDNA. I was scared then and still am now. I can't begin to tell you how many patients, family members, staff, I touch in one night at work. Let alone computer keyboards, copy machines, coffee pots, desk tops, etc, etc, etc....

  10. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Cool

    Thank you Cherokee for the great graphics. I was lost with your numbers during the radio show and this very old brain just couldn't keep up. These graphics are easier to follow along. Whoever was the DNA expert that told ML about the touch DNA should be brought forth and made to explain how much they knew and how much they carefully explained to her. The whole concept isn't an easy one to "get". ML needed an out for her friends and she got one with this touch DNA. Shame shame on her.
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  11. #83

    Default

    There is one more aspect of the DNA I mentioned on Tricia's show that I want to reiterate here:

    If scientists can get full y-DNA and mtDNA results from a 500-year-old skeleton that was dumped into a hasty dirt grave, then why is the alleged "intruder's" DNA (that was supposedly only 24-hours-old) partial and degraded enough that barely 10 markers could be found?

    Richard III's skeleton, particulary his femur and teeth, provided enough mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to match with two different living descendants of his sister, Anne of York. This provided conclusive proof the skeleton found under the Leicester parking lot was, indeed, Richard III.

    Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from a mother to her children. Only females can pass this DNA to males and females. The mother of Richard and Anne pased her mtDNA to both of them (and their other siblings), and it can survive unchanged for generations.

    Furthermore, scientiests are planning to use the y-DNA they were able to extract from Richard III's femur for matching with males from the line of York. Y-DNA is passed down only from a father to his sons. The reason why the scientists used mtDNA (first) for confirmation of the skeleton as Richard III, instead of y-DNA, is because mtDNA definitely shows maternal relationship.

    As we know, not all children are the offspring of their "fathers." In fact, it is estimated as much as 10% of the population has been sired by someone other than who they believe is their biological father. Therefore, y-DNA can have pitfalls if you are trying to match ancient remains. The fact that many "lords of the manor" insisted on sleeping with their peasant's brides is just one historical fact that has skewed many y-DNA lines.

    Be that as it may, the fact is ... scientists were able to extract viable and complete mtDNA and y-DNA from an unpreserved skeleton that was hastily buried in 1485! How much more so should the alleged "intruder DNA" have been viable and complete?!!!

    [Richard III DNA samples were extracted from the teeth and the right femur to compare with known descendants of Richard's family. Despite the potential for DNA to degrade, a match was found.]
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  12. #84

    Default

    Cherokee, that is interesting! How amazing that they were able to get enough DNA from an unpreserved skeleton, dumped in a hole! Brings the whole intruder theory into even murkier waters!



Similar Threads

  1. CNN Interviews James Kolar (Oct 26, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 28, 2013, 3:56 pm, Mon Oct 28 15:56:28 UTC 2013
  2. Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: December 24, 2012, 11:24 am, Mon Dec 24 11:24:14 UTC 2012
  3. Where to buy James Kolar's book: "Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet"
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 18, 2012, 12:35 pm, Sat Aug 18 12:35:36 UTC 2012
  4. James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: August 14, 2012, 10:11 pm, Tue Aug 14 22:11:18 UTC 2012
  5. Listen to James Kolar talk about new book on Tricia's show tonight! (July 18, 2012)
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 19, 2012, 8:43 pm, Thu Jul 19 20:43:59 UTC 2012

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •