DNA question

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Karen, Feb 7, 2005.

  1. Karen

    Karen Member

    Hey I have a stupid question. Maybe I'm just not thinking this through clearly, but here goes:

    IF the DNA in JB's underwear is suppose to be the killers, then how did it get there? I mean, he supposedly was wearing gloves..and he violated her with the paintbrush handle..so where was there any oportunity to deposit DNA in any form into the crotch of the panties since he was so covered and protected and apparently never touched JB skin to skin anywhere.

    It doesn't seem to me like this DNA has anything to do with this crime.

    What am I missing?
     
  2. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Watching You has the best info on DNA.

    You are so correctIF the DNA in JB's underwear is suppose to be the killers, then how did it get there? I mean, he supposedly was wearing gloves..and he violated her with the paintbrush handle..so where was there any oportunity to deposit DNA in any form into the crotch of the panties since he was so covered and protected and apparently never touched JB skin to skin anywhere.

    The Ramseys try to have it any way they think it makes them innocent. Problem is.....the truth keeps coming back to bite them in the behind.
     
  3. sue

    sue Member

    And, how did "he" do it all wearing tan/brown cotton gloves, which they have proposed to match some of the fibers on the tape?
    Or maybe they were multicolored, since according to the Bonita papers, the tape showed ""The DNA analysis of the trace evidence recovered from the duct tape revealed a human hair, an animal hair, later identified as beaver, and various natural and man-made red, blue, pink, purple,and brown fibers." (Although I have also read that the animal hair was "possibly beaver" and tan fibers in place of brown.)
    And, I would expect a different pattern of fibers on the tape if "he" was wearing gloves when it was put on. If the tape was from something (like off a doll or off a canvas), there would be a fairly consistent distribution of fibers. If someone wearing gloves put it on, the fibers would be heavy along some of the edges (if you can even tear duct tape with gloves on), but very spotty anywhere else.
     
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Oh good. This gives me the opportunity to discuss something that's been bugging me.

    The theory that, because the perp may have been wearing gloves means there should be no DNA in the panties, is flawed, because all it takes is a sneeze or a cough for DNA to be distributed. This is what I believe happened; however, I do not believe the perp left that DNA - I think it was left there during the manufacturing process; thus, the degraded nature of the DNA. In fact, I would be more easily convinced a sneeze would leave a lot of DNA - more than just a few old skin cells being shed.

    The second issue I have is the widespread notion that the perp molested JonBenet with the paintbrush handle. I don't think anyone knows for sure that is what happened. I think JB's molester/killer handled the paintbrush handle first to fashion his amateurish, clumsy imitation of a garrote. I also believe the head blow came first, and the strangulation finished her off. The garotte was part of the cover up.

    But, I digress. Whether the molester wore gloves or not, old paint or whatever artifact it was that came from the paintbrush handle, could have adhered to the glove or bare hand of the killer while s/he was handling the handle and been transferred to JB's vagina from the perp's hand instead of the actual handle being inserted in her. It seems to me that there would have been more than just a small artifact if the handle itself had been used instead of the perp's hand/fingers, whatever (this makes me sick to talk about).

    I also don't think they can say for sure the fibers found on JB came from gloves. They could have, but they could also have come from whatever was used to wipe evidence away.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for your excellent explanation WY.

    My question is. Is it normal practice for pedophiles to wear gloves? I wouldn't have thought so, but this is what they want us to believe, that it was one of the sex offenders
    who lived within a certain distance from the Ramsey home.
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    LOL, that's a loaded question if I ever heard one, Elle.

    I can't speak with any authority on what constitutes "normal" procedure for pedophiles. Let's put it this way - I have NEVER heard of any pedophile using gloves to molest his/her prey. I don't want to get into any descriptive discussion on pedophilic behavior; suffice to say that I would think wearing gloves would defeat the whole purpose because of the sensory (physical)aspects of the act of molestation.

    It's an interesting question. I suppose if one were inclined to wear gloves, they would be of the plastic/vinyl variety, not fabric.
     
  7. sue

    sue Member

    That makes very good sense.
    Even if the sensory aspect is thrown out, wearing gloves would make performing the molestation and restraining the victim so much more difficult.
     
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    These are my exact thoughts WY, the gloves would defeat the whole purpose.
     
  9. wombat

    wombat Member

    Unless she wanted to protect her $100 manicure.
     
  10. Catfish

    Catfish Member

    What is "degraded" DNA?

    This seems like a good thread to ask a question that's been bothering me: What is "degraded" DNA?

    (Edited to add: My impression is that DNA "degrades" over time. If my understanding is correct, any DNA that might have been left by an "intruder" would be fresh, as opposed to DNA left by, say, an employee packaging underware months earlier. If "degraded" DNA = DNA deposited months before it was discovered, then DNA found on JonBenet clothes has nothing to do with her death.)
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    "Degraded," by definition, means having been corrupted or depraved; having been reduced in quality or value.

    It's the same thing with DNA. There are different ways in which DNA can become degraded. A drop of blood on a hot sidewalk can quickly degrade. A DNA sample that has been exposed to any elements - rain, sun, heat, etc., will most likely be compromised and degraded.

    "Corrupted" can also mean "contaminated" in the general sense, but with DNA, the definition can be tricky, I think. Contamination of a DNA sample is more likely to mean something foreign got into the sample - like someone else's DNA, through transference.

    When a sample is degraded, it means it has lost some or all of its markers. When a sample is contaminated, it may have all of its markers, but it will also have someone else's markers.

    Nothing can change the DNA, but degradation can reduce the identifiable alleles, or markers.

    Hope this helps. DNA is complicated.
     
  12. Catfish

    Catfish Member

    Thank you WY for your response to my question. It would seem that the most common reasons for DNA to become degraded don't apply in this case.

    None of the these examples of degrading would seem to apply in JonBenet's case, unless being in a basement atmosphere would degrade DNA.

    Degrading "fresh" DNA left by an intruder through transference also seems unlikely here, unless is happened during the autopsy or testing of the underpants at a DNA lab. There seems no reason to believe there would be any transference of anyone else's DNA to JonBenet's underpants between the time John found her until the coroner arrrived and took possession of the body (given that she was wearing "long johns" over her underpants.)

    What I'm wondering about is, if one examines all the ways DNA can become degraded and none of these ways were present in this case, are we not left with only one conclusion: the DNA came from some source other than "a fresh DNA sample" left by an intruder?
     
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Absolutely. What the Ramsey supporters have never been able to explain is why JBR's (blood) DNA on her underwear was fresh and complete and identifiable as hers, but the alleged intruder's DNA, which would have to have been left at the same time, was degraded to the point that it really didn't meet CODIS criteria, (regardless of what they want you to believe). The DNA may have been submitted to CODIS, but I've seen no proof it was ACCEPTED into the database, given the fact it lacked the required number of alleles to meet their criteria.

    People don't leave half of their DNA. If the alleged intruder's DNA was left the same time JBR's DNA was left, then it only makes sense that both samples should have been complete. A miniscule amount of DNA doesn't mean that only half the DNA was there. It means there was a very small sample to begin with. Even the tiniest amount of fresh DNA has all its markers, if it is of sufficient quantity to be collected and tested. Therein lies the problem - there isn't always a large enough sample to be collected and tested. However, in this case, since they claim they got enough of a sample to test, then the sample they did get was degraded.

    Believe it or not, it's not unusual to find foreign DNA in a collected DNA sample. I read just recently that it happens sometimes. In one case that I just read about, there was miniscule DNA found mixed in with the victim's blood, I think it was on her hand. However, there were educated and reasonable minds at work in that courtroom - they said it had nothing to do with the case, and they were most likely correct, since all of us carry around foreign DNA on us.
     
  14. Karen

    Karen Member

    According to the Bonita Papers Dr. Henry Lee did some actual work on the DNA.

    "...After attending the briefing, Lee concluded that there was probably a 50% chance of solving the crime. He took DNA evidence back to the State Police Forensic Science Laboratory in Hartford, Connecticut, of which he is the director, for his own testing and analysis."

    I didn't know he actually did hands on work with the DNA?! I thought he was a consultant for Alex Hunter.

    This brings me to another question I have. When did we first find out the DNA under her fingernails and in the panties matched? Was it the 48 HRs. Special on TV? Now that I know Lee was involved to this extent, it makes me wonder if that lab person who was on TV is the one who really developed the full strand. WY, are you saying that wasn't done?
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    I was talking about pedophiles in general, Wombat. We know that both Ramseys must have worn gloves during the cleanup session. I wonder what happened to the pineapple bowl when Patsy's and Burke's prints were both found on that? However, these were not enough for D.A. Alex Hunter at that time to issue an arrest order. These, plus the notepad; pen; ransom note pad and Patsy's paint brush. What a weasel he was.
    However, Deja and Catfish have already covered this part.
     
  16. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Just a thought I'd like to throw in here,

    taht has occured to me. Since the murder was committed in their own home both parents would not need gloves to hide their own fingerprints. They are all over the place as they live there. Why hide them now? That is one of the strange things about the "clean" flashlight found on the kitchen counter. Not even any prints on the batteries. Why? I would bet 10 million if I had it that my prints would be all over the batteries in my flashlights. Why not?

    In fact does anyone have a good explaination for the fingerprintless flashlight? None of LE claimed it and neither did the Ramseys. Whose was it and why was it wiped clean inside? I can guess why outside....perhaps what caused the head blow.
     
  17. Elle

    Elle Member

    Exactly ZM. The Ramsey's prints are all over their own house, as they should be; except on the critical evidence. Do they think we're stupid? Put us in charge of this case Mr. Tom Bennett. We'll point out the Ramsey flaws one by one. Right Zoomama?

    P.S. The Rams forgot to clean the pineapple bowl. Oops!
     
  18. wombat

    wombat Member

    I think they didn't clean the pineapple bowl because nothing happened around it - they forgot that JonBenet had eaten pineapple a while before she was killed. She probably ate around 10 pm, but the staging etc took til 5 in the morning.

    They only wiped off the things they used for the staging. The flashlight didn't have to be the murder weapon for them to think they had to clean it off - Patsy just used it to navigate in the kitchen and basement without having to turn on the house lights. Maybe one had the child's body (pre-rigor) and one had the flashlight to guide them as they moved her downstairs.

    The batteries are another matter - Maybe the flashlight didn't have batteries when they took it out of the drawer, and the act of putting in new batteries with gloves on helpfully removed any fingerprints that had been on the body.

    PS - I didn't mean to be snide about the manicure post earlier, just trying to lighten things up. I was getting upset at the graphic descriptions of what pedophiles do. I don't have the stomach for it, I admit.
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    I just thought you were lightening up the situation, Wombat. Understandable. It is a horrible subject. I'm like WY. I don't enjoy talking about pedophiles either; they make me sick, but sometimes we have to.
     
  20. sue

    sue Member

    I think you are right about the pineapple bowl. That fits the time element, the fingerprints on the bowl anda good reason why they would not have thought about the bowl.
    I was wondering about the flashlight, whether it was related to the injury or the staging.
    I didn't know until I read in the Bonita report that the flashlight matched the dimensions of the head wound.
    "Crime lab analysis had not been able to obtain any fingerprints from either the outside or interior of the flashlight, nor on the batteries inside. Testing was then conducted to determine if it could have been the weapon used for the bludgeon wound on JonBenet's skull. The forensic lab did testing with an identical flashlight by smashing it into pieces of Styrofoam. The impressions left in the Styrofoam by striking it with the head of the flashlight were identical to the fracture found daring the autopsy. If the flashlight was not one of the murder weapons used, whatever it was had identical dimensions."
    Even if it's not the cause of the head wound, you brought up some pretty good reasons for it being there.
    Your comments about the possible staging use of the flashlight really makes sense. I also wondered if the flashlight was part of Patsy's "normal routine" for getting JB up to use the bathroom at midnight. In my experience, if you have to get a child up for some reason during the night, you want to keep things dim to avoid getting them so awake. I can see Patsy using a flashlight to get JB up and to the bathroom (especially since the only light in JB's room was a lamp without a wall switch between the beds)
     
  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