Who do you believe?

Susan Bennett (aka jameson) posted that the DNA in JBR's underwear was "mixed with her blood" - she knows this apparently from one of her unnamed inside sources. Seemingly, her source has sources from inside the lab and they say :-

Dave (self proclaimed expert of all things) supports the possibility of this assertion and posted a link to an article about atomic microscopes and how they "offer advances" in visualising DNA. I was interested in this, but unfortunately, the link would not open for me. It said I needed to enable cookies to read it, but I already have cookies enabled ....

Hmm.. This is first I've read about a lab report which confirms that the DNA was mixed with the blood - proved by a microscope which can "tell". I'd really like to see proof of that and I'd really like to know why only last year, Tom Bennett broke his silence to make a statement saying the DNA might NOT be the killer's If they had already proved irrefutably it was mixed with her blood - why would he break his sworn silence to make an erroneous statement?

I'm rather skeptical about it all really. For starters, we have to consider the source - I have many saved examples of where jameson has posted lies about the case evidence. She lied about the first polygraph being failed due to "polygrapher error". She lies continuously about Kane trying to destroy evidence. There are many, many other lies but that is not the point of this thread.

As I said, we have to consider the source - and unfortunately, jameson's source (who contradicts Tom Benett) is an unnamed one. Just a mysterious, anonymous case insider. One of the many who have apparent proof of the ramsey's innocence - yet for some reason, they remain shadowy figures who never go public with their supposed proof.

I did a little bit of digging about these microscopes myself and I found an interesting article about electron microsopes which says:-

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/thegenome/hg01f013.html

I'm interested in this so I'm going to write a few e-mails and ask the experts to comment on jameson's claims. If it transpires that Tom Bennett broke his silence to tell us lies, I would be pretty unimpressed.

 

Not just that, but if you remember, they tested some of the pairs in the package and they had human DNA in them.

 

Another interesting website:-

http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/forensicscience/dna/DNAfaq.htm

My question :- if you cannot see DNA strands clearly enough to be able to tell individuals apart - how can they tell if two different people's DNA are mixed or layered?


Frome the same webpage:-

(Incidentally, this web page is dated September 2005)

 

Jayelles

What Jameson does NOT know about DNA would fill the Rose Bowl.

Thanks for your research, which will prove, I am sure, that jameson is talking out of her hat when she says DNA can be seen under a microscope, and furthermore, the microscope could "tell" whether the DNA samples were mixed or layered.

I'm surprised that jameson did not inform her readers that the microscope could also definitively date the DNA samples "Christmas Eve, 1996".

She pulled this one right out of her butt.

 

Possible source for information?

Lurker XYV, you mentioned that you thought she pulled this one, "right out of her butt." May I suggest a possible source for most of her information?

http://buttcandle.com/index.html

 

Interestingly, we had a veterinary student for dinner this evening (former pupil and unexepected visitor). I didn't expect him to know too much about DNA and was surprised at his knowledge which he says is taught on the biology course. He confirmed what the above article said - i.e. that the microscope wouldn't be powerful enough to differentiate between individual DNA samples.

He said the DNA would be soaked from the fabric using some kind of solution and that they would have to amplify it in order to see it through an electron microscope. He gave a speel about some gel being used but he had lost me by that stage!

 

I see Beth has challenged Dave (self appointed expert of all things) about the DNA through a microscope. She asked this very good question:-

However, in typical Spin team form, instead of answering her question, he referred to a previous post of hers where she said:-

and used this statement to avoid her question saying:-

Major question avoidance tactic! Surely if Dave knew the answer to the question he would simply ...answer it?

IMO, it is sooooo important to record these little interchanges. The difference is obvious to those who read carefully. Apparently you can see DNA strands under a powerful microscope but NOT to the point where you can differentiate between different donors. The fact that Dave (self appointed expert etc etc) deflected the question should be noted.

Doesn't he know the answer to the question? or doesn't he want to provide an answer which will compromise jameson's claims of inside lab knowledge in which case he is guilty of spin doctoring.

I hope Beth pursues this.

 

Jeezipeeps

RST spin tactic - when you are caught out in misinformation or a lie - make a vehement denial - of a different accusation!

In trying to support her allegation of inside lab source which stated that the foreign DNA and Jonbenet's blood were definitely mixed, she has resorted to giving an analogy of a baby's messy eating and playing habits (stains on stains - think washing powder advert).

Her point is that you can see the layering of the stains - and therefore forensic scientists would (naturally - RST logic) be able to see layering of microscopic DNA from a cough or sneeze and blood under a microscope.

(no baby feeding time analogies required - just a credible source please).

BTW - jameson says:-

 

How would DNA get "mixed" anyway? Fuse two cells together? I mean, DNA is extracted at the cellular level...right? Color me stupid, but it seems that it either wasn't a good sample to begin with or I'm missing something. Help me out.

 

Well that's a good point Prairie! I think we tend to use the word "mixed" when we are talking about the body fluids which contains the DNA rather than the actual strands of DNA. Of course if two people's DNA is broken down, then the scientists would have to sort out a mixture of "bits" wouldn't they?

I mean, people tend to say "we found DNA at the crime scene" when in fact they mean "We found a drip of saliva at the crime scene". They don't always know where the DNA comes from and can only speculate that it's saliva etc.

Gosh, it's early!

 

WY is very knowledgeable when it comes to DNA, Jay. She worked for a DNA expert and must know a lot. She may be away at the moment. I am always very interested in her DNA posts.

I hardly think Tom Bennett would have broken his silence to give false information. I was so disappointed we never heard too much from him, and we waited a long long time.

 

Yes I enjoy WY's posts on DNA too. It's a subject I'd like to learn more about. The fact is, that it takes a real expert to be able to talk in lay terms about a subject. It's only when one totally understands a concept, that one can provide simple analogies and speak in a non-condescending manner to non-experts. Real experts have nothing to prove.

 

I have always been interested in it too, Jay, and you're doing a great job here. I'm going to read over your posts and soak up what you have posted, thank you. You're just a little clever clogs.

P.S. Trouble is Jay, I need a simplified versionoke: Can you supply this?

 

Hello there, Jay, Wonderwoman. Would you like me to start a fund and buy you the best microscope to solve these DNA problems?I read over all your posts and it seems that Jams will need to be very careful about her next DNA statement. I'm just thinking if you're studentsfind you absent from your desk, they'll find you in the science lab pinching microscopes. Thanks Jay for all your interesting data. I need WY's brains to fully understand it, but I'm trying.

 

I'm hoping to find an expert willing to give a simplified version. Around the time that jameson claimed the foreign DNA was male and caucasian, I contacted a scientist working on the Human Genome project who confirmed that at that point in time, race was only sometimes identifiable from mitochondrial DNA and not from nuclear DNA. Studies into mitochondrial DNA (extracted from hair) had resulted in a huge database with information about the subjects whose DNA had been analysed and they knew the race of these people so they were able to make familial links as a result of that. In Westerfield's trial, it emerged that one of the "blonde" hairs found in the RV was asian - causing a little confusion until it was pin-pointed to Westerfield's girlfriend - an asian woman with dyed blonde hair!

jameson's claim was false and (deliberately?) misleading. Lou SMit includes the hair found on the blanket as intruder evidence and it could well be caucasian. However, an -umption has to be made that the hair and foreign DNA came from the same source though. Gender cannot be determined from mitochondrial DNA. in order to determine gender form a hair, it is necessary for the bulb to be present on the hair as nuclear DNA can be extracted from the bulb.

In the Ramsey case, I do not think there was a bulb on the hair because ....... very possibly they would be able to get a full DNA profile from that and wouldn't be working with partials. Also, I believe that if they had enough of a match on the panty/fingernail DNA AND any potential hair bulb DNA to say they were from the same person - IMO, they'd be SCREAMING these facts from the rooftops and not just alluding to them as unnamed source information.

I have always been confused when jameson would allude to the existence of *more* information which cleared the Ramseys - but which she could not reveal. Quite frankly, if I were an advocate for someone who was being falsely accused of murder and knew of the existence of evidence which absolutely cleared them, there is no way I'd remain silent about it.

The bottom line in this case is that the evidence is very, very muddy. Much of the so-calloed intruder evidence cannot be dated to the night of the murder and therefore cannot be irrefutably claimed as evidence. The foreign DNA in her underwear was fragmented and possibly old and therefore cannot be dated. At this late stage, the official line is that it may NOT be the killer's. There is therefore nothing which absolutely clears the parents and they are still potential suspects.

It doesn't help the Ramseys when their supporters are seen to lie about the facts of the case - claiming that they have been cleared, that the DNA is the killer's, that the bootprint/palmprint/packing peanut are evidence when none of them can be dated for sure.

The ransom note is evidence. The animal hair is evidence. The garotte is evidence. The duct tape is evidence. None of these exclude the parents for sure.

The FACT is that the case is a mystery. It has not been resolved and the parents have not been officially cleared.

It will only be when the killer is identified that the pieces of the jigsaw will slot together. It never ceases to amaze me that the RST claim that the DNA is the killer's - yet they continue to propose suspects who have been cleared on DNA!

 

One thing I have never understood...

A spider expert said that the web formed on the window that was not disturbed that night could NOT have been rewebbed....therefore, an intruder did not enter throught that window.

Why is it that all the Ramsey supporters still insist that the intruder went through that window???????????????????????????

They are not the experts and they seem to totally disregard the true experts...

This is a fact! No one entered through that window..it was impossible.

Jayelle, could you comment on this please?

 

I'd love to because the spider web is part of another contradiction in RST propaganda.

On the one hand, the RST like to state that it got warm enough that morning for a spider to waken up out of diapause, become active and do a bit of web spinning.

However...

If the temperature rises enough to bring insects out of diapause, then any snow and frost around the house would melt pretty quickly so that when police photographers took photos of the bare paths an hour or so later that morning, there would be very little left of a light snowfall.

Instead of accepting waking spiders and melting snow are both consequences of a rise in temperature, the RST just scream "BORG!" and ask "where is the snow for there to be no footprints in the snow?".

Another aspect of the grate leading to the basement window is that of there being grass/foliage under the grate. By his own admission, John Ramsey stripped to his underpants one night in his garden and entered the house by this window. he said that Patsy was in Charlevoix at the time - making it summertime. There is a very good chance that the grass was trapped there during John's nocturnal activities.

Grass grows most vigorously in the spring and summer. The Ramseys had a gardener and we know for a fact that this guy worked there in the fall of that year (re his comment about clearing up the leaves). Our gardener does a final grass cut around October each year and not again until April/May because the grass doesn't grow over the winter (not perceptably). In October/November, our gardener clears up the leaves, cuts back shrubs and foliage, tidies the borders and edges the lawns.

The Ramsey lawns looked tidy to me - no reason to suspect that there was long grass of foliage which had not been cut back for the winter and which would therefore get trapped in a grate that was opened. However, if the foliage was already under the grate, the gardener might not bother to lift the grate to reach it.

Just a thought on that one.

 

I hope you are successful in finding this expert, Good luck with your search.
Whose to say the hair in the blanket wasn't an old one, Jay (?) Hairs can become entwined in blankets, and can still remain after washing, I'm sure!
With all the people in that house before Christmas, there has to be an abundance of DNA. The Christmas tour, not to mention the workmen with their boots on in the basement. What a fiasco!

As for Jameson, it would be better for her to do exactly the same as you. Seek out and name the experts giving the information. So one needs the actual root (bulb) of the hair, not just the hair itself? On CSI and other programs, you just see the forensic techs lifting up a hair and placing it in a bag. So interesting!

 

Every time I think of this episode of John Ramsey going to all the trouble to lift a heavy grate, remove his clothes, slip into the window well etc., etc., I shake my head in disbelief! Here we have a CEO who could have walked around the back of his home and found a much easier way to get into his house.

One poster was hilarious on one site where he went through the scenario of John Ramsey going through this scene, Did he carefully fold up his jacket and place it on a bush, then his pants. Imagine Ramsey at ground level kicking this window in, which for starters is awkward. Anyone got a window similar to this? You can't stand at ground level and properly kick in a window when it has a window well around it. Moving right along. Where did he place the heavy iron grate while he was supposedly kicking this window in?

My son has a window like this around a basement window, and we have all thought how ridiculous it was for Ramsey to come up with a story like this.
Did John Ramsey kick the window in first, before he took his pants off, because he was worried about getting his pants soiled? Can't afford a cleaning bill? Did he put his shoes back on again when he was in his underwear and then kick the window in? Does anyone believe this guy? I don't!

Neighbours across the street, the Barnhills, who more or less had adopted JonBenét's little Bijon Friese dog, Jacque, had a key.

Just how did these Ramseys get away with so many ridiculous statements, Jay?

 

Just noting that dave has yet again failed to answer Beth's simple question asking him (being an expert on all things) to

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/966.html#53

One wonders how much wiggling Dave will do to avoid answering Beth's question?

He is ignoring the FACT that Beth did concede that you can see DNA under a microscope - but that is a whole different thing from what jameson is claiming.

I *really* would like to see jameson, Lin Wood, Dave - even the ramseys interviewed by our Jeremy Paxman.

Edited to say - we are having dinner with a retired biochemist this evening. I must ask him about this. He might not know as he has been retired for several years and has immersed himself in other subjects since then.