Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 237
  1. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Doc Watson/Miss Marple was a closet IDI who even hid it from himself. He was delusional enough to believe himself objective, but his IDI lace slip always showed beneath his Miss Marple skirt.
    He even was delusional enough to believe no one would see how slanted toward IDI his Wiki is.
    I wonder why DW/MM has quit the JBR discussion. Do any of his email buddies know?
    They don't, and are a little worried about MM. They said he suddenly did not reply to their emails anymore and wonder what happened.

  2. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Elvis

    Elvis is the board certified MD who posts at Sycamore. She has excellent contacts and is fantastic at explaining all things medical and scientifi in lay terms. She has given permission for me to copy her posts here. There were a few in particular which I think are nice clear cut DNA factoids! Here's the first one:-

    Biological evidence has very strict and specific handling and storage requirements. Dry samples such as the leggings are stored in controlled packaging and frozen at -20C. Obviously if the evidence had not been stored properly, it wouldn't have lasted a week, let alone 12 years.

    Degradation DOES NOT MEAN OLD. While it is true, that dna will degrade over time, there are many other environmental conditions that can degrade dna, including heat, moisture, sunlight, bacteria,, etc. That is why proper handling and storage is so critical. You have degraded dna on your epidermis right now and if you commit a crime and shed some of those degraded cells, it of course does not mean that the sample was left there before the crime and therefore you must be innocent.

    Also, there are many ways to tell which cell a particular sample of dna originated from since they collect the cells (the dna is not hanging around independent of the cell). First, they can examine cells microscopically and see the difference (epithelial cells from the cheek look different from epidermal cells which look different from liver cells....but of course the dna itself is identical). There are also other tests, e.g. if elevated levels of amylase are found they know the sample is from saliva (many other tests, too many to mention). However, they may not have enough of a sample to run the additional tests. So the bottom line: sometimes they can tell the cellular source and sometimes they can't, but the question is, do they have this info in the Ramsey case?

    You are correct about lcn testing in that it can recover ANY kind of cell, not just skin cells. If they do an lcn 'scrape' and recover dna, it could be from skin, sweat, semen, etc....further testing would be necessary to determine the source. I have heard it reported in the press that the lcn sample from the Ramsey case was from skin cells, but I have no idea if that is true because I did not hear that directly from Bode nor have I seen a lab report. And IME uch of what is reported int he press is incorrect when it comes to advanced scientific info.



    A few other random points of clarification that I think need to be addressed:

    While mtDNA is indeed found in the mitochondria (outside the nucleus), Y-STR dna is found inside the nucleus.

    They did indeed recover mtDNA in the JB case, but obviously nDNA is much more useful since it is unique to heterozygous individuals. mtDNA is useful because it has a higher copy number, but it is only used in criminal cases when nDNA is not available.

    Gender is determined from chromosomes (XX=female, XY=male). Locus (plural loci) is a location on a chromosome and alleles are the different variants that exist at a locus.

    There seems to be a misconception by many here that individuals who were excluded as donors of the 9 marker sample need to be retested against the complete sample. Not true. Once they do a dna profile on someone they store in digital form. I have had several occasions where my dna needed to be excluded as a possible donor/contaminator. They don't retest my dna every time this comes up, but they have a digital profile on file that they refer to.

    The info you posted on haplogroups is 100% correct and the "race gene" is a myth. I have posted this as well as the above info several times, but I'm starting to think everyone has me on ignore.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  3. #99

    Default DNA figernail match myth

    The IDIs are quick to claim that touch DNA matches the fingernail DNA also, with uncritical media articles tooting into the same horn, like the following:
    Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07...dna/index.html
    How can the fingernail DNA "match" anything if it had too few markers to even make a valid comparison? Am I missing something?
    Lead scientist. A. Williamson did not say one word about any fingernail DNA either here:

    GRACE: Straight out to the lines. Tonight a bombshell. Due to a highly sensitive new DNA technique called touch DNA, we now learn of more DNA discovered on the leggings beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey wore the night she went to bed, the night that she was killed. That DNA, a male DNA, matches DNA found in her underwear.

    Straight back out to Angela Williamson, the lead scientist who worked with Bode Technology on the Ramsey case. Was the DNA sperm?

    WILLIAMSON: The DNA profile we obtained was not from spermatozoa.

    GRACE: That only leaves hair, skin, nails. Do we know what substance it was?

    WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone`s hand.

    GRACE: Skin cells, OK. Angela, Ms. Williamson, the DNA found inside the 6-year-old`s underwear, the inside crotch of her underwear, mingled with her blood -- was that DNA sperm?

    WILLIAMSON: We actually did not do that testing. It is my belief that it was not from sperm, though. However, that testing was done by the Denver PD.

    GRACE: Thank you. Back to Nia Bender with 710 KNUS. The DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear, was it sperm? Do we know what it was?

    BENDER: We do not know what was in the underwear. They have never really clarified whether there was sperm in the underwear or not.

    GRACE: OK, let`s ask Ollie Gray. Ollie, you and John San Agustin say that you have had inside information, that you`ve been able to review the files. Was the DNA in her underwear sperm?

    GRAY: As far as I know, it was not sperm.

    GRACE: What was it?

    GRAY: It was a liquid, and it could have been either from the mouth, or it could have been from an insertion into the vagina area of part of the paintbrush that caused the fluid. As you remember, it was also mixed with blood.

  4. #100

    Default

    rashomon, check your PMs when you have a second, okay?
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  5. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Punisher View Post
    rashomon, check your PMs when you have a second, okay?
    TP, I've just sent you a PM back.

  6. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    TP, I've just sent you a PM back.
    Right. And thanks.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.

  7. #103

    Default Unknown DNA under fingernails not unusual

    [1992 Butts murders]:
    Under Gerri's nails there was some DNA - - mostly her own - but a small amount of material was found - it had enough markers to identify as foreign DNA. The DNA tests were performed at Gene Screen. The person who performed the DNA test in 1992 no longer works for Gene Screen according to Amber Moss (Gene Screen employee) and they don't perform that type of testing procedure anymore (outdated).

    In 1992 the lab tec then advised authorities that the DNA matched the victim and small amount of unknown was not unusual for that type of testing.
    http://butts_info.tripod.com/buttsfamily/id22.html

  8. #104

    Default

    Can they narrow down the source of the skin cells? Can they tell the difference between epidermis and mucosal cells?

    I wonder if the skin cells could be epithelial cells which are shed in urine? My thought is JBR could have picked up innocent male DNA from the White's toilet seat or bowl.

    If JBR picked up the DNA on her fingers, she would have used the same fingers to pull up her own underwear on the portions of the garment where they found the touch DNA.

    Phil Spector had unknown DNA on his genitals at the time of the Lana Clarkson murder, presumably from using a public toilet.

  9. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I believe they can tell the difference between types of skin cells. Epithelial cells are found in more than one place (the inside the cheek is one), and I don't think they are saying these are epithelial cells. My understanding is that they are skin cells from a hand or finger, because they are saying it shows that this person pulled down her pants.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Actually, at this time, I don't think science can tell what part of the body cells came from; at least not in normal testing. DNA analysis methods are improving all the time, and there may be very sensitive, expensive, and controversial (at this time) tests to differentiate between body cells. In time, these tests will probably be perfected.

    LCN (Low Copy Number), or "Touch" DNA is NOT the smoking gun in the JBR case that Lacy claims it is. Did we expect any kind of ethical behavior from her after the unethical way she has dispersed information in the past?

    In fact, LCN is generally considered not to be at a good enough level to be considered evidence in most court cases. IOW, the science has not been perfected, because of myriad reasons. In fact, in a court case in Northern Ireland, there was a review of all cases that relied upon LCN analysis of DNA, because the procedure was considered so controversial and unperfected.

    There are many problems with DNA testing using the LCN procedure. The crime labs offering the new technology are limited, and considering that LCN is considered the last resort used by law enforcement, that would indicate that the sample is probably old, degraded, and sub-microscopic, as in the JBR case, That is a problem in itself. Also, using the JBR case as a reference point, the aging of the samples introduces more chances of contamination from other sources. This could have been true in both the panty DNA that Lacy claims indicates that an intruder was there that night, and the LCN DNA that was tested years after the fact.

    Contamination is a really huge issue in LCN testing. There is no doubt many people have handled the evidence in the JBR case. Without photographic proof that each person wore gloves and followed stringent requirements for handling evidence, how do we or anyone else know that both the panty DNA and the waistband material were not contaminated by someone handling the evidence improperly?

    The LCN procedure is highly sensitive, and the possibility of contamination is much higher than in regular DNA testing. There are also problems with accuracy in LCN testing. LCN can give a distorted result and is considered not scientifically reliable at this point. One article I read states, "...the miniscule amount of material used makes LCN DNA easily susceptible to taint and contamination. In fact, it's considered that the less DNA being tested, the less chance there is of a reliable result.

    Here is the website I got some information about LCN DNA from:

    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/new...er_3_2006.html

    This website lists eight problems with LCN DNA.

    Amplification: The process for obtaining LCN DNA requires an analyst increase PCR-amplification from 28 to 34 cycles. Traditionally, DNA processing technology has been thought to work most efficiently when amplification is limited to 28-30 cycles. In some instances fingerprints have been analyzed at 28-40 cycles and rootless hair shafts at 35-43 cycles.10


    Threshold: Since results fall below the normal PCR interpretation threshold, at this time, there is no standard stochastic threshold accepted between laboratories to use in the evaluation of the LCN processing results.


    Contamination: A common consequence of increased PCR-amplification is that analysts see background DNA contamination resulting from DNA left by an amalgamation of the various individuals who handled the object and not exclusively from those individuals involved with the criminal act under investigated.


    Alleles drop-out: Allele drop-out may occur if one allele of a heterozygote locus is preferentially amplified in the increased PCR-amplification process.11


    Allele drop-in: Additionally, LCN typing is susceptible to allele drop-in (sometimes called stutter false alleles12) or the appearance of artificial STR profiles. Typically allele drop-in is not reproducible and thus by repeating the process multiple times without obtaining identical results, the analyst can identify the problem as allele drop-in.


    DNA Mixture: The problems with LCN DNA typing are exacerbated when the evidence is a mixed same-gender sample as opposed to a mixture of male and female DNA. An analyst may have difficulty in determining whether a true mixture exists in the evidence sample and separate out its contributors.13


    Artifacts: Other caveats associated with LCN typing include potential bleed through, instrument spikes, increased potential for PCR artifacts and stutter14
    Since DNA analysis does not shed any light on the timeframe in which a biological sample was deposited, most LCN typing, unlike other DNA typing, cannot be used for exculpatory purposes.

    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/new...er_3_2006.html
    Note the bolded part of the above quote which says: ...most LCN typing, unlike other DNA typing, CANNOT BE USED FOR EXCULPATORY PURPOSES. Going by that explanation, that would mean Lacy, once again, did not tell the truth when she said the touch DNA cleared the Ramseys, and its use in court probably would be disallowed.

    Lacy is either incompetent, stupid, or deceitful. She has used every means at her disposal to try to clear the Ramseys, and she has succeeded to the extent that most people don't understand how much she is spinning the truth to get to her conclusion.

    Did the lab interpret the LCN DNA results, or did Lacy interpret the results to fit her own purposes? How many alleles were present in both of the samples that were compared? Who has handled both of those samples? One doesn't have to have knowledge in depth about DNA to question her statement that the DNA cleared the Ramseys.

    It only takes the ability to see that Lacy is not telling the whole story. Either she doesn't get how easy it would be to take her public and illegal exoneration of the Ramseys apart (she hasn't got the right to proclaim the Ramseys innocent, because all the evidence has not been submitted to public scrutiny or the intense examination a defense team would give it.) She's twisted DNA results before, claiming matches where only 2-3 alleles were present. I have no doubt that this is the same thing as they tried to pull with the degraded fingernail DNA - they claimed a match there, but what really was there was a comparison between degraded, incomplete DNA samples (one of which could have been artifact) - one sample with 9, possibly 10 alleles, and the other with only 2-3 alleles.

    That is the kind of manipulation of evidence Lacy has used in her attempts to clear the Ramseys. The big question that has never been answered is, why? Lacy et al can spin DNA results all they want, but real DNA experts and those with knowledge of how DNA really works know better, and they know Lacy is full of it.

    PS - I edited this because I typed it too fast and made a couple of typos.
    Last edited by Watching You; September 18, 2008, 7:43 am at Thu Sep 18 7:43:39 UTC 2008.
    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---

  11. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You View Post
    Lacy is either incompetent, stupid, or deceitful. She has used every means at her disposal to try to clear the Ramseys, and she has succeeded to the extent that most people don't understand how much she is spinning the truth to get to her conclusion.
    Mary Lacy is all of the above. No one in their right mind, with critical thinking skills and a competent knowledge of DNA, would do what she has done. Furthermore, she does not have the legal standing to clear the Ramseys, and as a practicing attorney, she should know that. However, knowledge of the law has never gotten in Mary Lacy's way.

    Mary Lacy does what she wants to do because she knows no one in Boulder or Colorado has enough power, ethics and guts to stop her! She has become a law unto herself, and no one in authority gives a damn.

    Thank you, WY, for such an excellent post on the Ramsey case DNA! What you have written should be published in every media available, print, audio and website, in order to counter the idiocy of Mary Lacy and the misrepresented DNA conclusions she has used to illegally exhonerate the Ramseys.

    What Mary Lacy has done is travesty of justice. Unfortunately, it appears no one cares but us.

  12. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Mary Lacy is all of the above. No one in their right mind, with critical thinking skills and a competent knowledge of DNA, would do what she has done. Furthermore, she does not have the legal standing to clear the Ramseys, and as a practicing attorney, she should know that. However, knowledge of the law has never gotten in Mary Lacy's way.

    Mary Lacy does what she wants to do because she knows no one in Boulder or Colorado has enough power, ethics and guts to stop her! She has become a law unto herself, and no one in authority gives a damn.

    Thank you, WY, for such an excellent post on the Ramsey case DNA! What you have written should be published in every media available, print, audio and website, in order to counter the idiocy of Mary Lacy and the misrepresented DNA conclusions she has used to illegally exhonerate the Ramseys.

    What Mary Lacy has done is travesty of justice. Unfortunately, it appears no one cares but us.
    Sure would be nice if I could think of something we could DO about it.
    They should all drown in lakes of blood. Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night.



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
  •