Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 50
  1. #1

    Exclamation A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

    In the very near future, Tricia’s True Crime Radio will be featuring a DNA expert, (who has appeared in nearly a hundred trials as a Court recognized expert witness,) to answer some questions relating to the JonBenet case and discuss DNA issues in general.
    Please post your questions here.
    (There is no guarantee your question will be asked, but every effort will be made to be as accommodating as possible.)
    Last edited by cynic; February 18, 2013, 3:40 am at Mon Feb 18 3:40:41 UTC 2013.

  2. #2

    Default

    Specific to JBR case question:

    Does John Ramsey DNA has been found on/in JB's mouth area (CPR was performed or not? Eeny, meeny, miny, moe,: Catch a LIER by the toe

    General DNA questions:

    Based on CODIS standards for partial DNA:
    - is it legal to publicly exonerate anyone 'who partially didn't match'?
    - in which situations and by whom the partial DNA has been proclaimed as the MAJOR evidence of the crime versa 'non-essential artifacts' (with assumption that CODIS has the 'remarks' area)?
    - does partial DNA in CODIS has 'expiration/removal' date and if yes then under which criteria it performs??

    Thank you!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Exclamation

    DNA is now accepted in Jury trials everywhere. Has there been a court trial with TOUCH DNA used as evidence? And if so was it a murder trail?
    "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

  4. #4

    Default

    Dr. Dan Krane will be the guest on Tricia’s True Crime Radio this Sunday.
    His CV is 35 pages long
    http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf
    He has recently released the following very informative videos.
    (Additional supporting documents and other information can be found at:
    http://www.bioforensics.com/)

    DNA technology in court
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp1ZfqeGPhU

    Generating forensic DNA profiles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt3gRO8nfeY

    Artifacts and noise in DNA profiling
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ErDtXV-NE

    Statistical weights of single source DNA profiles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leRP3xhO_ZA

    Statistical weights of mixed DNA profiles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVHo1Pjf210

    Implications of database searches for DNA profiling statistics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtTIPFjlQeI

    Observer effects in DNA profiling
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyN27k7bLxg

    What can go wrong with DNA profiling?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJU7H7xnxKI

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you cynic for this valuable information. I will work my way through them.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #6

    Default

    Yes, thanks cynic, for all you do in keeping us on our toes.

    Or just awake.

    Could such small amounts of unsourced DNA as was found on the clothing of JonBenet over a period of many years, starting in 1997, have come from one or more various medical and lab technicians handling the clothing, leaving contaminants from sources other than any of the known, tested subjects?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #7

    Default

    On Tricia's True Crime Radio tonight:
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...t-8-pm-eastern

  8. #8

    Default

    One of the cases that was mentioned on the show involves a recent ebook which some of you might be interested in.
    It relates to an old (1961) controversial case from the UK which, regardless of how you may feel about the verdict, it seems that DNA should have been left out of the controversy given the problems that the author, Robert Harriman, outlines.
    Hanratty: The DNA Travesty
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E9QPEES

  9. #9

    Default

    Two bombshells from the show
    The much vaunted DNA evidence that Mary Lacy, Lin Wood have shamelessly paraded around would NOT BE ADMISSIBLE in court because it is a mixed profile with dropout.
    “… there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred."
    Listen at 54:38 – 58:25
    Continuing on with Mary Lacy, Dr Krane said that if she based the exoneration exclusively on the DNA evidence then that was WRONG – “THAT THAT CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA.”
    Listen at 58:42 – 61:00
    Last edited by cynic; August 18, 2013, 11:36 pm at Sun Aug 18 23:36:03 UTC 2013.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Two bombshells from the show
    The much vaunted DNA evidence that Mary Lacy, Lin Wood have shamelessly paraded around would NOT BE ADMISSIBLE in court because it is a mixed profile with dropout.
    “… there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred.
    Listen at 54:38 – 58:25
    Continuing on with Mary Lacy, Dr Krane said that if she based the exoneration exclusively on the DNA evidence then that was WRONG – “THAT THAT CONVEYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DNA.”
    Listen at 58:42 – 61:00

    It makes me want to throw my socks up, it really does. She was bound and determined to get Johnny off the hook before she got out of office....scratching around on clothes and trying to come up with a match....
    And the media backing off because they bought it.

  11. #11

    Default

    Tricia and Cynic--

    YOU ROCKED IT OUT!!

    Dr. Krane--

    YOU ARE BRILLIANT!


    (And I seldom am impressed by that--ask anyone--but in your case, I WILL MAKE AN EXCEPTION!)


    For all of you faithful case followers, YOU MUST LISTEN TO THE FIRST HOUR OF TRICIA'S BLOG RADIO SHOW! At long, LOOOOOOOONG last, we have the DNA issues explained in language that won't have you pulling your hair out or banging your head on a wall!

    All from an international DNA profile expert WHO ACTUALLY TESTIFIES ABOUT DNA IN TRIALS...Oh, it's like we're ALMOST THERE! With Tricia and Cynic laying out the questions we NEVER thought we'd hear answered!

    Even I understood it!

    And you will be FLABBERGASTED, once again, at how much of a PURE SCAM it was to run the partial DNA evidence up the media flagpole as an excuse to "exonerate" the suspects to whom the overwhelming body of evidence invariably leads in this case: the Ramseys.

    Of course, we smelled that skunk all along. But now we have an ACTUAL WORLD-CLASS FORENSIC DNA PROFILER explain it to us.

    As cynic said, THE MIXED BLOOD SAMPLES OF PANTY DNA WITHOUT A FULL PROFILE FOR THE UNKNOWN DONOR NEVER WOULD HAVE MADE IT INTO A TRIAL! Dr. Krane explains it in inarguable terms: it's not allowed "BY AN ABUNDANCE OF CASE LAW" in the U.S.

    Also, turns out that "touch" DNA testing? Same thing as regular or LCN DNA testing, depending on how much of a sample is found by the high-tec process of scraping clothing with a razor. Yeah, it's that simple. And nothing new when it was paraded around by Team Ramsey as more advanced DNA technology in 2008. It was the same testing they'd done in 2002: LCN. They just scraped around on the clothing trying to find more. Then acted like it meant "more proof" of an intruder. But Dr. Krane explained it this way: there is no way to know how it was deposited there or when or by whom. It could have been secondary or tertiary transfer or contamination.

    Oh, you just have to listen to the show. HAVE TO!

    Cynic and Tricia, you did a MAGICAL job asking THE PERFECT QUESTIONS!

    I am ecstatic!

    I'm in shock. HOW..WHO...Tricia, Cynic...YOU HAVE DONE WHAT NO ONE ELSE HAS IN THIS CASE: you EXPOSED the DNA red herring for what it is, once and for all.

    Well, I have to give Chief Kolar lots of credit. He set it all out in his book, but having an EXPERT actually tell us in his own words just SEALED THE DEAL!

    And Steve Thomas--goes without saying, right? He truly started the unraveling of the diabolical chicanery of Team Ramsey when he put his heart and soul on the line for a little girl he never met.

    There won't be a trial, we all know that by now. But dammit, YOU GUYS HAVE BLOWN AWAY TEAM RAMSEY'S SMOKESCREEN.

    There's nothing left to give one iota of cred to that old imaginary intruder--not even a fifth of a nanogram of DNA!

    Yeah, I was listening--and taking copious notes! Cynic, if you are going to do a transcript, you're probably faster without me. But if not or you need help, I do have some important quotes I'll be happy to type up. (Only took me 3 hours to write them down by hand--see what I mean?) Just let me know.

    Again, I cannot thank all of you enough...oh, and Levi had some good "I'm lost in DNA science" questions, as well, which is exactly how I felt, so bravo to him, too!
    Last edited by koldkase; August 19, 2013, 1:35 am at Mon Aug 19 1:35:42 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    It makes me want to throw my socks up, it really does. She was bound and determined to get Johnny off the hook before she got out of office....scratching around on clothes and trying to come up with a match....
    And the media backing off because they bought it.
    This is a time for celebration, Learnin. Keep your socks, because now we know the truth.

    And while it's not a trial, after all the years of lies and Ramsey BS, it's still dang good.

    We have an experienced forensic professional expert with an actual Ph.D, a professor, a man who could testify in court--and has scores of times--to everything he said, on the record: the DNA in this case is evidence of...nothing.

    It's a done deal.

    I won't listen to one more word of the propaganda spin of Team Ramsey from anyone: TALK TO THE HAND!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.



Similar Threads

  1. Thomas online chats from 2000 answer questions
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 6, 2013, 6:43 pm, Fri Dec 6 18:43:50 UTC 2013
  2. Lin Wood regarding Burke recent refusal to answer detective's questions
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 29, 2010, 4:49 pm, Fri Oct 29 16:49:34 UTC 2010
  3. Conflicting evidence on blow/strangle- what's the answer
    By Stonewall in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: August 26, 2006, 11:17 pm, Sat Aug 26 23:17:06 UTC 2006
  4. Burke: the final answer?
    By Figment in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: March 8, 2004, 7:57 pm, Mon Mar 8 19:57:26 UTC 2004
  5. Why Polygraphs Are Not Always The Answer
    By JR in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 15, 2002, 1:51 am, Sat Jun 15 1:51:25 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

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