Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 85 to 96 of 111
  1. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Great tie-in, Cherokee! I was stunned to hear how quickly and affirmatively this skeleton was identified as Richard III. The archeologists must be lining up and jockeying for a chance to analyze his bones!

    Unfortunately, most people cannot grasp even the basics of DNA, let alone any intricacies. I count myself as one who can "get" the basics, but I don't flatter myself that I know much beyond that. But even my limited brain can understand that degraded "touch" DNA does not implicate nor clear any suspect! However 5 separate individuals were NOT in that house on Christmas, as Kolar's introductory chapter illustrates.
    "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!

  2. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Cherokee,

    Congratulations on your knowledge of DNA. What an intelligent young woman you are to understand all this DNA information!I shall
    do my best to understand "some" of it!Thank you for posting the information of the DNA of Richard III. Wasn't that exciting!?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  3. #87
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Very fine posts, Cherokee, except that I'll go to my grave swearing I wasn't the donor!!

    All kidding aside, all I can add is that they didn't even have ten markers for years! As I recall, Didn't they start out with 3 or 4, and then have the strands regenerated with some crazy new scientific tech?

    It was also fascinating to hear Lacy claiming that two samples "matched," when the full strands were not there, and that in a court of law you can't call any DNA a "match"--you can only say it is "consistent with." In the 90's the FBI was trying to get legislation passed to change that--since in OJ Simpson's case, the DNA found at his crime scene was some crazy number like 10 billion to one that it belonged to somebody other than Simpson, but they couldn't call it a match in court. But Lacy called this garbage a match. Thus throwing away the ransom note and all the other staging that came from Pasty's personal effects!

    And worse, she didn't just throw everything else away, she cleared them. Disgusting.

  4. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post


    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?
    Cherokee, Didn't the lab have to amplify the DNA sample to even come up with 10 markers so the sample would qualify for entry into CODIS or am in a state of confusion.

  5. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    All kidding aside, all I can add is that they didn't even have ten markers for years! As I recall, Didn't they start out with 3 or 4, and then have the strands regenerated with some crazy new scientific tech?
    Awww, Bob, we must quit meeting like this. Just cross-posting in the night in passing under the stars and the moon (see my post made right after yours).

  6. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    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.
    HIYA, Sunnie!
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    They have extracted DNA that can still be identified from some Egyptian mummies from the 18th Dynasty or even older!

    One day....Jurassic Park will be a reality!
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #92

    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.

    Ha ha, I didn't think about THAT when I included you in the DNA profile! I was trying to make the DNA graphic more interesting than just using John Doe-type names.

    It's good thing pea-brained Mary Lacy isn't the Boulder DA now because she'd have all of us in the chart graphic arrested on suspicion of being her partial and degraded intruder!

    Seriously, that made-up graphic I posted is more valid than the "touch" DNA results she used to "exonerate" the Ramseys! At least it has real numbers and is based on real people. I also posted my graphic PUBLICLY, which is more than Mary Lacy was willing to do! And now we know why!!!

  9. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    Very fine posts, Cherokee, except that I'll go to my grave swearing I wasn't the donor!!
    Ha ha, and here I thought you'd be honored to be the "ten-marker man"!

    All kidding aside, all I can add is that they didn't even have ten markers for years! As I recall, Didn't they start out with 3 or 4, and then have the strands regenerated with some crazy new scientific tech?
    Yes, according to a "JonBenet Ramsey DNA Timeline" published August 29, 2006 in the Boulder Daily Camera:

    In 1997, DNA collected from a blood spot on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear was described as contaminated.

    In 1999, the FBI released new technology called Short Tandem Repeat to profile DNA. It used 13 markers to raise the probability that a randomly selected individual would match it is one in 1 quintillion.

    In 2001, the new testing was allowed after a legal battle in Colorado's courts, and JonBenet's underwear was analyzed again, resulting in between only one and two markers out of 13 being defined.

    In 2003, a second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear was tested, resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined.

    Initially, there were only nine very weak markers found, but later, a 10th marker was added by using enhancement tecniques. James Kolar describes this in his book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?

    p.140

    The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenťtís fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases.

    Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar. Regrettably, they could not tell police investigators if the biological source of the male DNA was derived from blood, semen, epithelial skin cells, or some other genetic material.


    The challenge to technicians was enhancing the DNA sample so that it could be entered into the state and national DNA databases, and it took a while for this technology to develop. As noted above, the FBI requires that 10 out of 13 genetic markers be identified in order for a sample to be entered into the Forensic Index database.

    DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Departmentís crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenťtís underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases.

    p. 303-304

    I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 Ė 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

    DNA samples generally consist of 13 Core loci markers, so it is important to note that Distal Stain 007-2 is not a full sample of DNA, and the FBI requires at least 10 markers be identified before an unknown sample can be entered into the national CODIS data base.

    The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with ....


    It was also fascinating to hear Lacy claiming that two samples "matched," when the full strands were not there, and that in a court of law you can't call any DNA a "match"--you can only say it is "consistent with."In the 90's the FBI was trying to get legislation passed to change that--since in OJ Simpson's case, the DNA found at his crime scene was some crazy number like 10 billion to one that it belonged to somebody other than Simpson, but they couldn't call it a match in court. But Lacy called this garbage a match. Thus throwing away the ransom note and all the other staging that came from Pasty's personal effects!

    And worse, she didn't just throw everything else away, she cleared them. Disgusting.
    My thoughts exactly!

  10. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Cherokee, Didn't the lab have to amplify the DNA sample to even come up with 10 markers so the sample would qualify for entry into CODIS or am in a state of confusion.
    No, you are not confused! Bob asked the same question right before you, so I answered both of you in that post.

  11. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    They have extracted DNA that can still be identified from some Egyptian mummies from the 18th Dynasty or even older!

    One day....Jurassic Park will be a reality!
    Yes, and 10,000-year-old Native Americans buried in Florida, the ones I mentioned on Tricia's show last Monday. Unfortunately, one set of bones were found to be contaminated when the DNA result showed a European ancestry, and it was traced to one of the research team members!

    That's why it is important to suit up and glove up when recovering remains, performing autopsies and testing DNA in labs. Contamination has recently been discovered as a huge issue in many forensic labs.

    Dr. Jo Appleby, an osteoarchaeologist from Leicester University, followed correct procedure when she went to examine and remove the bones of Richard III from it's small burial pit.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  12. #96
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Not to mention 40.000 YO wooly mammoths.



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
  •