Panty and Fingernail DNA

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Moab, Oct 8, 2004.

  1. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Reading an archive at the swamp and found this url on the markers that "match" between the DNA in JB's underwear and under her nails. We are always asking about this, so thought I'd share for a refresher and see if we can get some comments going


    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html
    It also shows how dumb Wood is...he says HIMSELF that there are half a dozen markers in common from the DNA under her nails and that in her panties.



    WY is good with DNA, maybe she can help 'splain this.

     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2004
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I don't have much time right now, but on first glance, this sticks out like a sore thumb -
    Seeing that the news I read was that there were only three or so identifiable markers in the DNA under her fingernails, it would be impossible for there to be a half dozen markers in common between the fingernail and panty DNA.

    I thought early on that panty DNA could have been deposited on the fabric of the underwear somewhere along the manufacturing process - someone sneezing (happens all the time), coughing (happens all the time). For Wood to say disparaging remarks about Mike Kane in regard to this just shows Wood's ignorance.

    Latah.
     
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    Moab, I can't open the url. Will try later. Could be problems on the net (?).
     
  4. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Moab,

    I can't open the url either. I've tried several times. I always think it's me because some of the stuff that I get in the mail doesn't open.
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I couldn't open the URL, either. I copied it and pasted it into the address bar to get to the site.
     
  6. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Thanks WY,

    I put the whole url into the search bar too but I came up with the paper but only a listing of everything by section. There was nothing no section to help me go any further. I tried putting in the various numbers on the long url and that didn't work either. So I'm stumped completely and I've tried to go back to the listed url that Moab gave us but to no avail. I've given it my best effort and would like to join in here but I can't because I can't read the article. OH I should mention that I got the Ramsey listings for many many articles but nothing like what I wanted. I even got some Christmas pictures from a family names Ramsey (whoever they were) but not the ones we know. That was when I tried the various number in the url and got nothing.
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thanks WY. This worked for me. Strange how the url is exactly the same. I've given up trying to figure out why computers behave the way they do. Go above the search bar to the menu ZM and open "file" and click on "open" and then paste it in there. It might work (?).






    How on earth can Lin Wood ever claim to an intruder's DNA with the above statement?
     
  8. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I didn't read jamnut's take on this, because what she has to say just doesn't interest me, anymore.


    Of course it may not be critical evidence. It goes right back to what sensible studiers of this case know - the DNA in the underwear CANNOT BE DATED. I don't know why that is so hard for some to understand. No one can say when that DNA got on the fabric of the underwear.


    The last paragraph in the above quote is important. Investigators know the DNA in the panties did not come from seman. What, then? Skin cells? Doubtful. Blood? Well, think about it. If the perp's blood co-mingled with JBR's blood, and both blood deposits were left at the same time, why was JBR's DNA complete but the foreign DNA not? I suppose when you have a one-legged, hairless perp who wore one Hi-Tech shoe, and if he was born that way, his DNA might be a little messed up, but the chromosomes wouldn't be missing - they would just be defective. So, why was JBR's DNA so fresh, but the foreign DNA so degraded they had to fudge on that 10th marker to even submit it to CODIS? It makes no sense.

    So what about saliva? Same deal as the blood. When you leave DNA, you don't leave a partial sample. Each cell in your body carries a complete DNA code - every single cell. So, if this guy left saliva on her underwear THAT NIGHT, that DNA should have been as fresh as her blood, too. Again, it makes no sense. What does make sense is that saliva was deposited on the fabric of the panties during the manufacturing process. The panties were new, but by the time they were put on JBR, the DNA in the saliva deposited on the panties from a sneeze or a cough has degraded. There is your partial DNA, which is all they could get from the so-called foreign DNA.

    Every time you sneeze or cough, you spray into the air and on surfaces near you microscopic droplets of saliva/mucous. If you sneeze without covering your mouth, your DNA will most likely be on your clothing, your desk, whatever is near you.

    Sounds like Henry Lee to me.

    [...]



    What does anyone expect the Ramseys to say? Anything they say has to be looked upon as being self-serving.

    And, I say, so effing what? Wood can spin it all he wants, but he can't make that degraded DNA fit. If he and his clients want to claim the two DNA samples were left at the same time, he has to be able to explain why JBR's DNA was full and complete while the foreign DNA was barely distinquishable.

    [...]

    No. What's imaginative is trying to prove an intruder was in that house that night based on incomplete, degraded DNA, which no one on this earth can date. Prove to me that incomplete, degraded DNA was deposited on those panties on the night of December 26, 1996, and I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, it's "spectacularly imaginative theory" to me.


    I don't know what Wood is trying to say here. Surely he can't be that stupid. Oil and water might not mix together, but other liquids will absorb whatever is in the fabric. Try pouring beet juice on a cotton fabric. Let it dry. Then, pour water on the fabric with the dried stain. Do it with beet juice, or do it with blood, if you want to prick your finger and bleed a little on that fabric. What happens when you pour the liquid on the dried stain? The water, or whatever, reliquifies the dried beet juice or blood stain, right?

    What's the difference between dried blood and dried saliva? Obviously, you can see the blood, but you can't see the saliva. Both contain DNA. If you reliquify the blood, the blood, and its DNA, is absorbed into and mingles with the water, right?

    In fact, isn't that what criminalists do? When they collect blood samples, they have to DRY the samples before they store them. They then extract the DNA by re-wetting the dry samples. Their collection media - cotton swabs or whatever they use - have to be 100 percent contamination free so as not to transfer any contaminants to the blood sample while it is wet.

    I don't get why this is so difficult for the Rambots to understand. Blood will absorb anything that is already on a fabric. It makes sense. Maybe that's why they can't understand it.


    Yeah, well he can "contend" anything he wants - the fact is, this is BS and just false. The so-called fingernail DNA was so old and so degraded (not "flesh" as the liar mame claimed), it didn't even yield a half-dozen markers - more like three markers. Wood is so full of it, he stinks.

    As for anything jams writes, I don't read it and I don't care, so she's wasting her time with me. She thinks Molesterfield is a good guy. What more needs to be said? My tolerance for stupidity reached it's limits with her a long time ago.
     
  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