Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 237
  1. #1

    Default DNA Questions, "Touch DNA" & "Familial DNA"

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9833167


    "Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis
    An area a person might have briefly touched, such as clothing, is scraped for cells.
    By Steve Graff
    The Denver Post
    Article Last Updated: 07/09/2008 09:08:06 PM MDT


    Related Articles
    Jul 10:
    There's only one victim in the Ramsey case12-year-old murder case likely to top DA's legacyDA clears Ramsey familyJul 9:
    DA clears Ramsey familyThe fresh DNA evidence prosecutors say clears the Ramsey family in JonBenet's death was analyzed using a new process known as "touch DNA" testing.

    The name "touch DNA" reflects that investigators extract samples from only a few cells left behind by a person who briefly touched an object, such as clothing. Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy decided to pursue the new line of testing in August after learning DNA could be analyzed from areas where there was no observable stain or other indication of DNA.
    Forensic scientists from the Bode Technology Group, the lab that performed the DNA testing, scraped areas of JonBenet's long johns that investigators suggested would be where a person would touch if pulling down her pants.
    Bode informed the district attorney's office in October that genetic material had been identified off the long johns.

    That DNA matched the DNA earlier found on JonBenet's underpants.

    Bode has performed "touch DNA" testing for about three years.

    Linda Wheeler-Holloway, a former Fort Collins detective who became involved in the Tim Masters DNA-based exoneration case, said she and DNA forensic specialists Richard and Selma Eikelenboom of Holland presented "touch DNA" testing to the Boulder County district attorney's office in October 2006.

    The district attorney's office never followed up, according to Wheeler-Holloway. Until Wednesday, she was unaware that Boulder County had pursued such a method.

    "We were hoping the Boulder DA office would try it," Wheeler-Holloway said. "That is the best technology to use to solve that case."

    Steve Graff: 303-954-1661 or sgraff@denverpost.com

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If they can scrape areas of JB's longjohns for touch DNA...then they can scrape....the broken paintbrush, the cord, the spoon, the blanket that she was wrapped in, the shirt that she was wearing, her bed sheets, the Barbie Nightgown that was found with her body, the ransom note, the sharpie pen used to write the ransom note, the remaining size 12 panties that the Ramsey's finally turned over after more than a year.....ETC...ETC...ETC....

    If the "intruder" left touch DNA on her panties...and on her long johns...places that he supposedly touched long enough to pull down, and to pull back up again...then you know that there is "touch DNA" left all over the things that he touched for a longer period of time. The pen, the RN, the garotte...etc. Mary Lacy ...I challenge you to test THESE THINGS TOO!
    Last edited by Cherokee; August 7, 2008, 1:11 pm at Thu Aug 7 13:11:08 UTC 2008.

  2. #2

    Default DNA Questions & Familial DNA

    I guess it's time to start this thread. We should go back and collect as many posts as possible on this with info from knowledgeable posters and sources, etc.

    And while I may be walked off the plank for it, I'm STEALING a post by candy at topix which is really...gulp...important to this discussion. She got some answers to questions we've been asking about this "unidentified donor DNA", and I'm going to put her post here...allowing for the fact she may hit full speed ahead and ram us head on....

    One question I've asked: since no expert can say if the DNA in the underwear is FACTUALLY saliva, mucous, etc., but only "possibly", and since Bode Tech has said the "touch" DNA is "most likely" skin, but not ABSOLUTELY skin, could all of these DNA strands be skin or saliva, not both?

    http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonb...CS0JK#lastPost

    candy
    East Lansing, MI Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#1 18 hrs ago
    I asked this question today to a well known DNA expert:

    Can DNA, which was in minute particles of saliva in her panties, when
    dried, equal the skin cell DNA that was found on her waistband, from the
    same DNA donor/profile?

    The answer is YES!

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #3

    Default

    Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this thread before now.

    I asked candy if she'd spew green pea soup if I posted this post of hers here, and she didn't answer me, so I'm taking that as a "go ahead". But you may want to put on your rain gear.

    I actually emailed Bode Tech, asking them similar questions within a week of the "touch DNA" announcement and appearances on TV of their spokesperson/employee, Ms. Williams. They never got back to me. (I was very nice, really, I WAS!)

    But candy got a response, with some questions left unanswered, of course, which she posted at topix:

    http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonb...V9N3UKS5G6OS3J

    candy
    East Lansing, MI Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#1 Tuesday Jul 15

    In response to several questions I asked them about Touch DNA in this case, Bode Technology sent me this:

    Touch DNA Evidence

    As forensic DNA technology has become a common tool in criminal investigations, scientists have attempted
    to obtain DNA evidence from what were once considered unlikely sources.“Touch DNA” refers to the DNA
    that is left behind from skin cells when a person touches or comes into contact with an item.

    Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our
    skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an
    item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link
    the perpetrator to the crime scene. Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from countless items
    including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, and luggage handles, just to name a few.

    However, since Touch DNA is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or
    other body fluids, it is more difficult to obtain DNA profiles from touch DNA samples. The key to obtaining
    successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis
    and using the sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells.

    Many labs test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. In the “swabbing method”, the
    surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard
    items such as glass or plastic. The “cutting method” may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which
    fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells. These two approaches can be successful on
    many items of evidence and both are used by Bode Technology; however they both have the limitation of
    placing unnecessary substrate (the cotton swab itself or the fabric cuttings) into the small DNA processing
    tube. There is a limited amount of substrate that can be placed in a tube, and the substrate itself may “trap”
    some cells during processing, which would decrease the likelihood of obtaining results.

    In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode has recently started using the
    “scraping method”, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) is scraped with a blade to collect
    possible cells. Due to the lack of unnecessary substrate generated by this method (scraping produces a
    small “pile” of fiber, cells, and debris that can easily be placed in the DNA processing tube), a larger surface
    area can be sampled. An increase in surface area increases the number of possible cells recovered;
    therefore, increasing the chances of obtaining a DNA profile.

    The scraping method is ideal in situations where the scientist can locate areas on the item which are most
    likely to contain the perpetrator’s skin cells. If clothing were left at the crime scene by the perpetrator,
    pressure points on the clothing such as the interior neck of a shirt or the band inside a hat, are excellent
    candidates for the scraping method. In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had
    been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the
    perpetrator to produce a profile.

    Through improvements in sampling methods corresponding to increasingly sensitive DNA testing methods,
    and through continual education of the criminal justice community regarding the testing possibilities, Touch
    DNA is enabling forensic scientists to provide information in cases which were once unsolvable.

    koldkase
    Athens, GA Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#2 Wednesday Jul 16

    Thanks, candy. I have to go but will read more carefully later. Did I miss that they said this IS admissable in court? Or did they even address that? Sorry, my eyes are starting to blur.

    candy
    East Lansing, MI Reply »
    |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#3 Wednesday Jul 16

    They didn't address that. I didn't ask. They didn't address my question if mostly saliva DNA sample can be transferred and show up as just skin cells either. I asked also was Touch DNA the same as low copy DNA. They just sent me this and said we hope this answers your questions.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #4

    Default

    Here is a science article on "touch" DNA, or "low copy number DNA" (found for us by rashomon). The "Cautions and limitiations" section has some interesting information: LCN DNA shouldn't be used as "exculpatory" evidence, for one thing. But I don't pretend to fully understand this science, so do the research and make up your own mind:


    http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

    LOW COPY NUMBER - CONSIDERATION AND CAUTION

    Bruce Budowle, Deborah L. Hobson, Jill B. Smerick, and Jenifer A.L. Smith
    Laboratory Division, FBI, Washington, DC

    DEFINITION

    The wide acceptance of DNA typing in forensic science is due to its sensitivity of detection and discrimination. The use of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) affords enhanced sensitivity of detection, and the ability to amplify multiple loci simultaneously increases the power of the assay. Because of the successes encountered with STR typing, it was inevitable that some individuals would endeavor to type samples containing very minute amounts of DNA (1-8).

    The approach that amplifies less than typical minimum amounts of DNA template and then attempts to interpret the results has been termed low copy number (LCN) typing. LCN typing has been defined by Gill, et al. (4,5) as typing samples containing less than 100pg of DNA. However, because of variation in estimates of DNA quantity within and between methods of quantitation, LCN typing is better defined as the analysis of any results below the stochastic threshold for normal interpretation. When few copies of DNA template are present, stochastic amplification may occur, resulting in either a substantial imbalance of two alleles at a given heterozygous locus or allelic dropout. Typically, minimum amounts of DNA template are utilized in a PCR so that stochastic effects can be reduced. In the reverse dot blot systems (AmpliType PM and DQA1+PM, PE Biosystems), S or C dots, respectively, were used to evaluate whether a DNA template used in the PCR was above a level at which stochastic effects may have an impact on the relative balanced yield of two alleles at a given heterozygous locus. Similarly, for STR typing, peak height (or area) serves as a stochastic control. An effective stochastic interpretation threshold does not exist forLCN typing. Results are evaluated where stochastic effects during PCR are prevalent.

    [snip]

    LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

    Philosophically, LCN typing has some differences compared with general DNA typing that should be considered. In a typical forensic DNA analysis, attempts are made to exclude the suspect (or victim), and only after failing to exclude, inferences are made about the rarity of the DNA profile. Because of the extreme sensitivity of detection, background level DNA and DNA from casual contact may and will be detected. Thus, LCN typing cannot be used for exculpatory purposes. Thus, the paradigm for the use ofLCN typing differs fundamentally from general DNA typing regarding the capacity to exculpate individuals.Moreover, in contrast to attempting to concentrate the sample to obtain a quantity of DNA that would yield data closer to an acceptable stochastic threshold, the sample often is diluted to utilize redundancy forallele interpretation.

    However, there may be some limited applications where LCN analysis is warranted, such as someinvestigative lead situations. The consequence of its use should be considered, because such analysesmay still end up in court, and one may have to explain the limitations of LCN typing and the presence ofalleles due to the vagaries of LCN typing. In contrast, samples that can be cleansed of exogenous DNA may be more suitable for LCN typing. These include: bones, teeth, and hair shafts (10,11). LCN typing ofthese single source samples then can be used for exculpatory, as well as inculpatory, purposes. One mayconsider the typing of human remains that contain little intact DNA appropriate for LCN typing (usually the typing is not used for identification of perpetrator(s) of a crime(s)). These samples are still subject to allele drop-out and sporadic low level background contamination from laboratory chemical reagents, but exogenous DNA from casual contact or secondary transfer can be minimized or eliminated.

    Consistency and reproducibility requirements of STR typing must be reconsidered for LCN typing. Amplification of DNA samples with LCN often will be subjected to stochastic effects, as has been described above. Thus, it is difficult to validate LCN typing, because results often are not reproducible and reagents are usually not subjected to quality control (QC) at the conditions prescribed for LCN typing. Reproducibility of results, however, must be invoked by requiring alleles to be present in multiple amplifications of the same sample. The number of times an allele should be seen in a number of separate amplifications from a sample is still open to debate and will depend on the type of sample. Single sourcesamples may not require independent multiple amplifications for analysis. Moreover, to achieve typing ofmultiple PCRs of the same sample, the sample usually has to be diluted so it can be divided into two ormore amplification reactions. Diluting, in lieu of concentrating, such that the most available template is not placed into one PCR, is contrary to current effective practices (although necessary for LCN typing).

    Perhaps before undertaking LCN typing, limitations of the analysis should be disclosed to all involved, including other lab personnel, supervisors, police, lawyers, the court, and even the public. Publicizing the potential of the application of LCN typing without describing its limitations may cause misunderstanding. Considerations include:

    1) the basic philosophy of forensic DNA analyses to attempt to exclude does not apply;

    2) in contrast to attempting to concentrate the sample to obtain a quantity of DNA that would yield data closer to an acceptable stochastic threshold, the sample often is diluted to utilize allele redundancy for interpretation;

    3) if redundancy is used, the number of controls should be defined (and be at least equal to the number of LCN amplifications);

    4) there is no minimum threshold for guidance and confidence in interpretation. The operational interpretation thresholds currently in use (for example 150 or 200 RFUs for Profiler Plus and Cofiler Kits and the ABI 310, Applied Biosystems) do not apply with LCN modified procedures. In fact, the current stochastic thresholds are invalid for LCN typing;

    5) contamination is a greater concern which can result in such issues as allele drop-in. Practicesfor reducing contamination should be at least equivalent to those employed for mitochondrial DNA typing (10,11);

    6) because of enhanced sensitivity, casual contact must be considered. If the victim and the accused had any previous contact, the result may have no relation to the case at hand;

    7) heterozygous peak imbalance is augmented;

    8) the relative proportion of stutter can be increased;

    9) it is difficult to determine if a true mixture is apparent and not possible to separate contributorsin a mixture;

    10) kits and reagents may not have been subjected to QC under the conditions they are being used;

    11) statistical interpretations should be modified to better represent the uncertainty associated with LCN typing;

    12) the data should not be entered into CODIS;

    13) LCN typing should not be applied to post-conviction analyses and examination of old caseswithout substantial consideration. It can not be used for exculpatory purposes, and LCN contamination from handling may have occurred;

    14) because of the small sample size, the tissue source of the DNA cannot be inferred.

    Lastly, one can only evaluate the results within the context of each case, which problematically increases the interpretation or speculation on events by the analyst.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Caution should be undertaken when attempting LCN typing. The success rate is low; often the resultscannot be interpreted or are meaningless for the case. The method cannot be used for exculpatorypurposes. However, for single source samples where exogenous DNA can be removed and for typing ofhuman remains, LCN typing may be applicable. While there have been some dedicated efforts to exploit LCN typing, primary efforts still should be to reduce stochastic effects on minute evidence samples.Research possibly could include: 1) improving extraction efficiency to obtain greater quantities of template DNA, such as using tape lifts to recover more DNA from the substrate or using carrier DNA during extraction; 2) designing shorter amplicons for greater PCR efficiency on degraded samples; 3) improving the rate of heat transfer and reducing the diffusion coefficient in the PCR; and 4) fragmenting the DNA prior to PCR to augment denaturation and thus increase the amplification efficiency of minimal DNA template.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #5

    Default

    Here's the Bode Technology Group website:

    http://www.bodetech.com/index.html

    And the website press release/statement from them on this case:

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....147&highlight=

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  6. #6

    Default

    I've been studying the old partial DNA reports we have from screen shots, and I have some questions. I know it's been discussed to death, but this has been my weakest area of understanding in this case because...well...highly technical science like this is just tough for me when all we get are sketchy explanations anyhow. So thought I'd put this here and if Moab has time, maybe the screen shots.

    There are descriptions on one of these DNA reports of bloodstains: from "shirt"; from "panties"; from WHITE BLANKET; from NIGHTGOWN; as best as I can decipher the blurred words. I don't really remember all those bloodstains being on all those items. The only ones that I remember initially being "revealed" were those in the underpants.

    So...is that JonBenet's blood on the WHITE BLANKET, the NIGHTGOWN, and her SHIRT? I don't remember these "bloodstains" on these other clothes/blankets, as per an actual DOCUMENTED SOURCE. But then, I avoided this stuff in detail, for reasons listed above. I remember some dicussion, but just no details about it.

    I hope some of y'all can help me here. I've tried doing a search, but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Anyone?

    Here was Margoo's decipher of the screen shots in question, and mostly she did a good job, as this stuff is hard to see:

    Margoo
    Member since 11-29-02
    04-29-06, 05:48 PM (EST)

    22. "RE: Barbie Doll's Nightgown?"
    In response to message #21

    This is what I could 'read' from the screen capture (I believe it was Why_Nut who posted it).
    LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
    AGENCY(?) NAME – CD0878136 – F2 ACBLDER(?)
    EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
    ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)
    RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
    RAMSEY, JOHN W/M
    RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

    Two lines BLACKED OUT
    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
    #13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
    Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
    __________________________________________________ _______________(fold in page??)
    LABORATORY REPORT
    BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
    ??????? Section Testing WB
    BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
    WB WB
    BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
    WA WB WB W18 (?)

    THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.
    (the left side of the page seems to be cut off and starts with)
    FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
    (left side cut off) COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
    (left side cut off) 5 (or S or?) #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
    (JOHN is cut off) ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
    RAMSEY (blacked out)
    (cut off??) EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED.

    At that point the names go off the screen, but we can reasonably infer that the rest of the listing is of BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM John, Patsy, Burke and Melinda, plus John's brother Jeff and another named individual or two or three who have been censored out of the broadcast copy.
    Last edited by koldkase; July 27, 2008, 8:24 pm at Sun Jul 27 20:24:18 UTC 2008.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #7

    Default

    OOps. I see Margoo left out a couple of words:





    __________ ___________ HOMICIDE - WILLFUL KILL - FAMILY


    SUSPECT (S):
    RAMSEY, PATSY
    RAMSEY, JOHN

    VICTIM (S):
    RAMSEY, JONBENET
    Checking what I got against what Margoo got, I came up with some blanks filled in, which I put in caps and bold:

    LAB CASE XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
    AGENCY NAME – CD0878136 – F2 BOULDER

    __________ ___________ HOMICIDE - WILLFUL KILL - FAMILY

    EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)
    ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)

    SUSPECT (S):
    RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
    RAMSEY, JOHN W/M

    VICTIM (S):
    RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

    Two lines BLACKED OUT
    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain STANDARD from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J Swab with Saliva
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
    #13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
    Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
    __________________________________________________ _______________(fold in page??)

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    I do not recall hearing much about blood stains on the shirt and white blanket. If the only place JB bled was from her vagina, where would the other bloodstains have come from?

    Blood stains STANDARD only means that blood was taken from a known individual to be used in comparison to crime scene stains. The swab from saliva was probably a standard taken from the cheek of a known individual. O
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Default Agree with Watching You,

    Where did all these "BLOOD STAINS" come from. My recall is suspect at the best on every other day just for kicks...but I also remember there were very tiny blood stains in JBR underpants. And what was this black blanket where blood was found. Also if there were all these different blood deposits why then would Dr. Lee say, "This not a DNA case!"

    Could any of these before unmentioned or unremembered "bloodstains" be part of what was never released to us the public? Could the blood stains from John's black shirt be the "black blanket"? Boy am I confused. OK just went back and reread #13A.."semen"??? stain on black blanket...not blood.

    Also this has been running around in my tiny brain for awhile since we first heard of this newer "touch DNA". As I recall, JonBenet always asked an adult to help clean her after using the potty even at age 6. Could that be the cause of some foreign DNA to be posited on her tights? If she went straight to bed from the party at the Whites then she didn't gt changed for bedtime. Right? If an adult even a man assisted in cleaning her after using the potty wouldn't that be a good source for the different DNA. Very innocently placed there. hmmmmm?
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    WY,

    With Dr. Henry Lee saying this was not a DNA case, does he now have to change his opinion through DA Mary Lacy's final decision on the Touch DNA? Does he legally have the authority to query Lacy's decision?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Wink Good point Elle,

    and I wonder what Dr. Lee is thinking about now about Mary "curtains" Lazy? Especially since he is so competent and she isn't???
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    WY,

    With Dr. Henry Lee saying this was not a DNA case, does he now have to change his opinion through DA Mary Lacy's final decision on the Touch DNA? Does he legally have the authority to query Lacy's decision?
    Chit, no, Henry Lee doesn't have to change his opinion, which was dead on, BTW, on the touch DNA. It's not the touch DNA that's at issue, here (although I suspect it's more of the same BS as before), it's Lacy's flawed interpretation of what it means. Just because foreign DNA is found on JB's clothing doesn't mean the owner of that DNA killed her. There HAS TO BE other, substantial evidence pointing to that person, as well.

    Say they found someone who somewhat (somewhat, because none of the DNA has a complete factor of alleles in order to identify anyone) "matched" the DNA allegedly found on JBR's clothing. Are they going to arrest this person and try him/her for JBR's murder? Not if they have one solitary brain cell in their heads. There is still the ransom note, which is the single, most important evidence item in this case. There is still the total lack of any substantiating evidence. Can they place this mystery person in Boulder the night of the murder? Does this person's handwriting match the handwriting on the note? Can this person answer questions, such as; how did JB's head injury happen? There are so many things that have to come together in order to indict anyone. I don't think even the Boulder DA is so totally incompetent and stupid as to try someone based on the DNA, because the defense would make total fools of the prosecution.

    Oh, that's right. Lacy has done that all on her own, dumbbitch.

    ANYONE, including Henry Lee or Mickey Mouse, is entitled to question Lacy's decision. It's nothing but her own convoluted opinion, based on pure stupidity.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •