Problems with the DNA

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, Apr 14, 2004.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    As with just about all the spin that has ever come out of Lin Wood's mouth and echoed at the swamp, the facts about the DNA in the JBR case have been twisted and spun beyond belief.

    This was found at jameson's forum:


    Yet, a little research on the internet produces this interesting fact:

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna/codisrc.html

    As if this misinformation were not enough, we were then informed that the DNA had been submitted to the CODIS databank, and we were told that was somehow proof of the DNA's being from an intruder. Another account by the RST was that the DNA had been accepted by the CODIS databank. I remember reading somewhere that the DNA had been accepted for testing by the lab. Somehow both these terms - submitted and accepted for testing - got twisted by the RST into meaning the DNA had been accepted INTO THE CODIS DATABANK.

    I have never seen any source other than the RST (meaning Lin Wood and jameson) saying the DNA, which I believe had only nine good markers and one questionable marker, had been accepted either for testing or for entry into the national database. Furthermore, I do not believe that DNA ever made it into the national database and I won't believe it until a better source than the RST says it is so; and, if that happens, I would expect an explanation as to why DNA that did not meet the required criteria for entry into CODIS was accepted for the database.

    You've got to watch the subtle wording from the RST that cover their lies and bullsmit as they attempt to sway public opinion by misstating the facts.

    When I have it from a reliable source (not jameson or Wood) that the degraded DNA was in fact accepted into the CODIS database (not accepted "for testing"), then and only then might I believe it. In the meantime, it is nothing more than the rest of the lies and misinformation the RST has put out about this case - sort of on the same level as the packing peanut, entry through the basement window, and stun gun. Not believable. Those who perpetrate this kind of misinformation do so knowingly and with intent to misinform for purposes of their own agendas.
     
  2. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    WY, your posts are always so informative.

    And since I still have that recent rag on my desk here I thought I'd quote from it on this same subject. I hope you won't think I am making fun of your post at all. No, no nopey nope never.

    The recent issue of the Globe has these statements to say about the DNA:"The DNA evidence is now with the FBI at the bureau's Combined DNA Index System and experts say there is enough to match it to her killer." More quotes: "JonBenet, under her fingernails, had foreign DNA," says Smit. Lou Smit,...says "DNA evidence found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underpants points to a mysterious stranger as the sicko behind the beating-strangulations death of the blond Little Miss in 1996." "It (the DNA)does not belong to anybody in her family," says Smit.

    And then we read from private investigator Ollie Gray, "who has been investigating the case for the Ramseys for three years, tells the Globe an intruder killed JonBenet!" "Nobody in that family matches the DNA that was found," he says. It was Gray who described some of the stranger's DNA found on JonBenet as "saliva, mucus from a runny nose, along with traces of sweat and tears - but no semen." Notice he doesn't mention the DNA from under her fingernails!

    When I first read that article and came across that last statement of the saliva etc. the thought that ran through my little brain was that was all from Patsy after she had killed her and cleaned her up she probably did another one of her Lazarus type swoons over the cold body of her child and left all sorts of tears and stuff. You know how one's nose runs when you are crying. This would then explain to my mind anyway why Patsy did the swoon over her when John brough her up from downstairs. To "contaminate" in public so to speak.

    Had we heard about all of the bodily fluids that were on the body before this? Saliva, mucus, sweat and tears....That's a lot of stuff. :2mchinfo:
     
  3. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Codis

    CODIS is a standard for collecting, analysing and storing DNA.

    jameson's statement was ambiguous. CODIS certified DNA could just mean that the DNA was collected by a lab which is approved as satisfying the CODIS standard. I questioned her about that at the time and got a bluff of a reply.



    What is interesting me right now is the notion that perps can be nailed via their relatives' DNA. There have now been a couple of cases in the UK where the perp never re-offended and so his DNA never wound up in the National DNA Database. However a relative's did and eventually the police used that "similar" profile to clear up some old cases.
     
  4. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    I would dare to say that everyone on this forum who has not actually taken a fingernail brush, soap and water to their fingers since the last time they walked away from their computer has "unidentifiable foreign DNA" under their fingernails.

    Hey Smitsit and Ollie...

    thissignsforyou:

    :stupid1:
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    zoomama

    Zoomama, honey, I know you know better than to believe this malarky.

    First, :"The DNA evidence is now with the FBI at the bureau's Combined DNA Index System and experts say there is enough to match it to her killer."

    What I said. The DNA is with the FBI at the CODIS. It does not say the DNA has been through testing, yet, nor does it say the DNA has been accepted for the database.

    "experts say there is enough to match it to her killer." Experts? What experts have said this? Lou Smit? Lin Wood? When did they become DNA experts? What DNA experts have ever publicly said anything about the DNA? Nobody - that's who. The rags do not specify what "experts" these were. They could have been experts in dog manure, but I know they were not experts in DNA. Smit and Wood are the only ones who have ever stated this nonsense in public, that I am aware of.

    JonBenet, under her fingernails, had foreign DNA," says Smit. Lou Smit,...says blah blah blah. I have foreign DNA under my fingernails right now, I'll bet. I'll bet I have the DNA of one of the students who was in my office this morning - when he handed me a piece of paper, I accidentally scratched my fingernails across his hand - not enough to leave a mark but enough that I know some of his skin cells are under my fingernails.

    Aside from this - all I have to hear is "Lou Smit said," or "Lin Wood said," and I automatically tune out. Neither of them has anything to say that interests me or that I believe after all the misinformation and lies they have put out. If Smit said it, I don't believe it. If Wood says it, I don't believe it. And, if jameson says it, I don't believe it.

    It's all in the wording, and it's all in reading between the lines. The tabs are repeating things said from prior articles on the Ramsey case (I should know, I read them all). There's nothing new in this article - it's all rehash of the same old garbage from the same old spinners.
     
  6. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    Jayelles, I believe what they are doing in the example you cited is testing for
    Mitochondrial DNA.

    Here is a link to a site which explains it in pretty lay terms, " mtDNA is inherited from the mother only, so that in situations where an individual is not available for a direct comparison with a biological sample, any maternally related individual may provide a reference sample."



    http://www.mitotyping.com/dna.htm
     
  7. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    WY, Of course I dont' believe it!

    I copied all that crap because I wanted to bring it here for others to see just in case they hadn't read that issue. I know better....oh you bet your bippy I do. Don't ever worry about this old lady and what she believes about this case. And I have to agree with you in the wording of any statement that comes from Smitless or in the Woods. They spin, spin, spin in the wind. I guess I'll have to make a note at any other things I copy here to say it is for info only and certainly not my belief. K?
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I don't think so. There are two recent cases - one in Wales nd one in Scotland. The DNA was obtained from semen in both cases. They were both very old cases. One was solved, the other is "drawing near to conclusion".
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Oh, I heard about this, Jayelles


    I don't know if it was related to the two cases to which you refer, but I do know I have read of at least the possibility of the familial relationship in DNA being used as a tool to identify perps. It makes sense, of course, and it could be a useful tool to LE. On the other side of the coin, however, is the fact that it presents problems of its own in that while it might identify the family, it can't identify which specific member of the family without other evidence to point to that specific person. In these two cases, investigators apparently already had other evidence linking a specific person to the crime. The family link gave them additional evidence to help identify him.
     
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Hard work

    I think basically, it involves a lot of routine enquiry stuff. Bear in mind that the UK is a tiny place compared to the States and that we don't nearly as many immigrants comparatively. Families have been established over centuries here. I'm guessing that it might be less of a task to track someone by their familial DNA here than in the States....

    In the first case I mentioned - the one in Wales, basically, a relative offended and had his DNA taked an stored on the national database. Then cops looking at a cold case checked the database for similar DNA profiles, saw this one and visited the family. Family members consented to having their DNA tested and the investigation led them to a young man whose father was dead. I don't know how this works, but seemingly, there was a strong chance the young man was an immediate relative of the perp. Permission was granted to exhume the father and his DNA was a match.

    In the second case - a double murder in Scotland known as the "World's End" murders, forensic evidence had been stored for several decades and was tested a year or so ago for DNA. Police had always thought there were two perps, but the DNA proved that the same perp had raped both victims. Although not impossible that there were still two perps, profilers deemed it highly unlikely that only one of them would rape both victims. Anyway, the investigation was re-opened and the latest reports were that they were hoping to make an arrest soon. Our laws forbid any public discussion of active criminal cases and the media cannot print leaked information so we'll just have to wait and see.

    Another case which used family DNA was that of James Hanratty - the A6 Murderer who was hanged in the 1960s for the murder of a scientist and the rape and attempted murder of the scientist's lover. Hanratty had always maintained his innocence and his last words were for his family to clear his name. They spent almost 40 years attmepting to do that and there was a high profile campaign of support for Hanratty. Developments in DNA were exciting and Hanratty's supporters campaigned to have his body exhumed so that he could be cleared on DNA. The Home Office decided first to test hanratty's family to see if there was a similarity. The tests revealed that there was. Suddenly, Hanratty's campaigners reversed their plea and started campaigning AGAINST exhumation since it looked as though the DNA would prove he WAS the killer all along. The Home Office pressed ahead and Hanratty's body was exhumed. The tests were conclusive - it was a perfect match. Hanratty was the A6 killer. It had been a senseless killing. The rape victim who survived the attempted murder (but who had been paralysed by a bullet in her spine) had identified hanratty in a line up and she never wavered from her conviction that he had been the assailant. However, she had suffered years of abuse from hanratty's supporters. She was asked if she felt vindicated and she replied "No" because she was 100% positive that he had been the one.

    Personally, I felt sorry for hanratty's old father who had died believing his son was innocent. Hanratty didn't just rob his victims and their families - he duped his own family too and robbed them of the time they spent campaigning for his pardon.
     
  11. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    I have Dr. Lee's book "Famous Crimes Revisted" here. His other book, Cracking Cold Cases was checked out at the library. Both books have mention of the Jon Benet case.
    In Famous Crimes, he gives a brief synopsis of the case, including points which support an intruder theory and points which support an insider theory. As you should know,Horace, Dr. Lee was a consultant in the case. They don't come any better than Dr. Lee.

    Two of the points supporting an insider are:

    1. The amount of foreign DNA found on her fingernails and underpants were extrememly minute and could have been the result of contamination.

    AND

    2. The content of the 911 tape recording was inconsistent with the Ramseys' statements.

    Dr. Lee goes on to point out that a variety of forensic experts and specialists were consulted, including:
    DNA experts
    sexual and child abuse esperts
    stun gun expert
    fiber experts
    consultant for chemical breakdown of trace evidence
     
  12. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Sabrina,

    If I remember correctly Dr. Lee said from the very beginning, "This not a DNA case."
     
  13. Spade

    Spade Member

    Sabrina

    Thanks for posting this quote from Dr. Lee:

    "The content of the 911 tape recording was inconsistent with the Ramseys' statements."

    Well now, LinWad's and the Ramsey's statements are certainly consistent with the content of the 911 tape PRIOR to the hang-up attempt. So, what part of the tape could Dr. Lee be refering to?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice