PCR amplification

I've never understood how the ramseys can use the excuse of 'foreign male DNA' as to exclude them from being the perp, when considering that PCR amplification was used on this foreign dna in order to test for a match, but the stutter marks that resulted from this procedure makes it difficult, if not impossible to match it to anyone. Isn't PCR amplification not meant to be used in criminal investigations, or so ive read before.

How can the rams hide behind this weak excuse, when everyone in the scientific community knows it would never hold up in court. Just look at what Dr Lee says about the foreign dna being useless in such a case, due to how contaminated it was when upon PCR amplification was used.

I'd like to know if any of you guys know if the rams have publically expressed thier thoughts on this matter, or better yet even woody.

 

That's exactly right Charlie and they get away with it because people don't understand DNA. That DNA doesn't "match" anybody and never will!

 

tricia

Firstly, the DNA the was found on JonBenet’s body and clothing was taken from under her fingernails and in her panties. There were 2 sources of ‘foreign’ DNA.

However to test DNA in order to make a match with another sample of DNA, an adequate sized sample must be obtained. In this particular case the two samples gathered were to small to test. However there was solution to this problem, whereby the DNA is amplified or ‘grown’ in order for an adequate size to be tested with, this process is called Polymerase Chain Reaction or commonly known as PCR Amplification.

The DNA Samples taken from JonBenet was tested at the CellMark Laboratories and were determined prior to testing, that the DNA from both samples were degraded and several days old. Because the DNA from both samples were amplified in order for testing, so was the degraded dna amplified also. The DNA was then tested and the results came back with additional markers or known commonly as stuttering.


Neither Burke nor John Ramsey Matched. However one has to take into consideration that with more markers then normal DNA test results Cell Mark “concluded that there were either two intruders or the mismatch was caused by the stutter effect. If the stutter (Amplifying degraded DNA) effect is responsible for the extra markers, then there was no intruder and there is no foreign
DNAâ€.(Source)

Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7615/burke.html

 

Right and what does all this show? Lou Smit changing his hypothesis to two intruders shows that he knows about the DNA test results which means he has the case file. This is what Team Ramsey was after in December and obviously now have in their possesion. Lou Smit's comments early on about how he "has to keep a low profile" were all about not wanting the press to find out that they were after the case file--but at the same time he couldn't help but give a little hint about it. Sneaky, devious and all done very quietly. Now you all know why I felt the case was over in December.

Fortunately for the Good Guys, the Ramseys propaganda media assault has been stymied thus far and some TV producers have been made aware of the con job they are trying to pull. People see right through it, thank God.

 

If smit decides to pounce on the idea that two intruders were involved, wouldnt he have an even harder time convincing LE than he already has with the one intruder. Its hard to believe he could actually tell people and make them believe that not only did one intruder did not disturb proposed entry point (basement window) but a second intruder didnt also, and that goes with the idea of how come there wasnt further evidence left behind. If additional intruder came into the picture there would be double the chance that more evidence would be left behind, one would think anyway.

I'm not having a go at you BobC by any means, but i really cant see smit getting others to believe that concept, let along express the idea, when clearly its absurd.

 

No offense taken at all! I didn't say anybody would buy it--but obviously Smit is trying to sell this theory. It's pretty clear that niether Smit nor Wood understands DNA very well.

On the positive side, Lou Smit having to float his new crap to the likes of Jan Scott pretty much shows how seriously he's being taken by the real media.

 

I'm not very familar with Jann Scott, but i was just looking at his website or "journal" and a few key points stood out which are posted below which is information jann has recieved personally from smit via the phone:

"Lou Smit said they now have some good DNA with good markers, and that he knows who the killers are by their DNA markers alone. That's big...and it's new. They have just finished a round of DNA testing with new technology that came up with the markers. He said, "we have tested and retested DNA and there is a lot more to do. But I am convinced it is our killers."
He also said Fleet White has been tested and he is eliminated contrary to what Lee Hill told me. Lou told me that some day we are going to catch this guy, and it's going to be the DNA that catches him.

June 2, 2003
More Ramsey Case NEWS: Now last week we (me) were the first to report that new DNA markers and testing have identified the killer. According to DA detective Lou Smit "we got our killer." At least 4 members of the DA's office are working the case every day.
Lou Smit told me something else that is fascinating: He said that he and the other investigators have "mounds of material and people to check out." He said they are working on it and that it is going to take time, but when we finish I believe we'll will find our killer." http://www.geocities.com/jannscottlive/Weeklyjournal.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smit is rather contradictory here. From what I can surmise is that they have better DNA results from which to identify the killer, however the just haven’t as yet found a person that matches this new DNA result.

However what I don’t understand is what new technology have the used to come up with more markers. This is were it gets confusing for me. From the information we have learnt above about the problems associated with PCR, wouldn’t the result of more markers be less likely to find an intruder. However because Smit refers to this a new technology I’m inclined to believe that’s its not PCR procedure because it is far from new.

Therefore what is this new technology? I guess we might not know from quite some time.
Furthermore I’d like for someone to explain about DNA testing in regards to how much of the sample is used for testing. Because if Smit has had it re-tested under this new technology there must have been a significant amount left. Remembering that it would have to be the original sample taken off JonBenet not the sample that was amplified. So it would have been very hard to conserve such a small sample for future testing.

Then the question is raised, that perhaps there was more DNA samples than the two we thought.

Now in response to you tricia i would assume that keenan is familar with the problems associated with PCR amplification and of course would disregard it. especially considering new testing has taken place. Secondly i would assume the defense and prosecution would look at this evidence (original tests with PCR) and conclude two totally different explanations but it would be the jurys job to decide which explanation is more credible, based on scientific fact i would hope.

 

Yes Tricia your correct the DNA is old, thats what the CellMark labs concluded.

Quote from Tricia
"If I am then how could the defense use this to prove the Ramsey's are innocent? What spinning could there be that would explain away the old DNA and somehow make it new and fresh?"

I'm not a lawyer, nor do i have a vast knowledge in the practise of law, however i would assume the defense would try and dispute this claim of 'old dna' by gathering up a few quacks to try thier best to prove otherwise. Just look how hard Lin Wood has done to get pathologists to say a stun gun was used.

It would be interesting to know if wood has addressed the idea that the DNA is old and if he has, HOW has he tried to counter this claim. Then we would have some idea of how he would handle disproving the idea in court.

 

Right on Charlie. All crime scenes have unrelated trace DNA--just like all crime scenes have unrelated footprints, palm prints, blah blah. Imagine having to explain every footprint or fingerprint in your home! Could you do it? I couldn't! I've had dishwasher repairmen, electricians, friends, salespeople ect in my house depositing trace evidence, I'm sure. But when you are wealthy, you can pay mega-lawyers to blow these things way out of proportion, while playing down the simple fact that we have a staged crime scene and a dead child in a locked home.