DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Jul 22, 2012.

  1. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    WOW Cynic!!! As usual, methodically perfected analysis. THANK YOU!!!!!!
     
  2. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    A masterpiece of a post, Cynic! Bravo and right on! DNA is everywhere and it is being used to set guilty people free and enter doubt. I'd like to take a swing at the people who say that DNA exonerates the Ramseys.
     
  3. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    WELL DONE AGAIN< Cynic!
     
  4. heymom

    heymom Member

    Shows like CSI taint juries because they present ridiculous scenarios and show crime solving techniques that aren't possible. People believe that police really have every bit of evidence from every crime scene and things such as "tire-tread databases" and other science fiction made-up crime tool that Hollywood can dream up. The case you documented had GREAT evidence and that's still not enough of a smoking gun (so to speak) for some jurors. Try convicting a murderer when the gun isn't recovered, but the circumstantial evidence is very good that he did it.

    The scenario of an unknown intruder killing the Johnsons of course brings to mind the also ridiculous "foreign faction" tale that Patsy Ramsey tried to weave to cover up her daughter's death. Tom Kolar ran with this in the first chapter of his book, and I believe that book is making its way through Boulder, and causing some huge ripples in the still pond of the JonBenet case. Some people who until now, believed John and Patsy to be innocent, may be taking another look, feeling deceived or betrayed, and starting to talk.

    Thank you Cynic for this step by step explanation of why the DNA in this case is meaningless.

    Thank you Tom Kolar, for writing "Foreign Faction." We await further developments.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    cynic,

    I join Learnin and all the others here. Bravo! You have missed your calling.

    Thank you for the time taken to create this. I wish we could have your information here on the front page of every newspaper available!
     
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I can't tell you how much I admire you, cynic, as well as Tricia, Cherokee, and everyone else on the forums, who keep the truth front and center.

    Me... :help:

    I. Can't. Take. It.
     
  7. otg

    otg Member

    Bravo, cynic. I've been very busy lately in RL with only a little time to read and try to keep up with all the breaking news (wow). When I saw your first post on this thread, I decided to wait until I could give it my full attention. Now that I have taken the time, I have to tell you how impressive it truly is. It's much better than any of the crap I read from so-called investigative reporters. You really should consider submitting it for publication to a few different sources.

    As to your example of the Johnson killings... I don't remember reading or hearing about the case before, but it intrigued me. I found something else interesting about evidence in the case that apparently had investigators and prosecutors both stumped (although I think most of the smart people here would have no problem figuring out). The pattern of blood spatter on the pink bathrobe didn't fit with what was expected. Most of the blood was on the left sleeve and the back of the robe. By the time everyone reads this sentence, and before they read the following quote, they will probably have figured out the reason -- so I don't understand why prosecutors couldn't see it until it was pointed out.

    (Note to reader: Don't read the quote box if you want to give yourself a little test to see if you can figure it out before reading it.)

    From http://crime.about.com/od/juvenile/a/sarah_johnson.htm:
    Say what you will about Nancy Grace, but I do think she does some good sometimes. She certainly did in this instance.
     
  8. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    Cynic and otg, I think BOTH of you should start your own publication company. I'll be first to buy your books!
     
  9. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I wish we had a "thanks" button here.
     
  10. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Why the DNA is contaminant and not from the crime scene!

    The main reason is ...

    THERE IS NOT ENOUGH OF IT!!!!​


    If the partial, degraded, not enough to make standard 12/13 marker DNA specimens were deposited the night of JonBenet's death, they would NOT be partial, degraded, not enough to make standard 12/13 marker specimens of DNA!

    CODIS allows the MINIMUM of 10 markers, but when you have fresh DNA, as would have been deposited at the crime scene barely 24 hours before, the usual sample is a full 12-13 markers. That is standard. When a genealogy test is done, 12 markers is the absolute minimum to establish results. A paternity test requires the minimum of 16-17.

    So, a person can see that if there are less than 10 markers present, there is a problem with the sample. Fresh DNA will have much more than 10 markers present, and currently, y-DNA (passed down from fathers to sons) can be analyzed as far as 111 markers. This is just a tiny part of our genome.

    For the purposes of testing, only certain areas of our DNA are sampled. This usually occurs at the juncture of the DNA strands where recombination takes place. It has been found that certain parts of human DNA are easier to sample than others, so those areas have been assigned letter and number names so that DNA testing can have a standard for results.

    I have created some graphics to help explain why it is absolutely ludicrous to think that 10 markers, or less, of degraded DNA could be samples from the night JonBenet died, and why the partial DNA that was found is only contaminant or artifact!

    For explanatory purposes, I will be using results from y-DNA testing because it is easier to illustrate my points.

    First, let's take a look at a 111-marker y-DNA test to see how ridiculously tiny a less than 10-marker sample would be. Keep in mind, the 111-marker test is only a tiny fraction of our own DNA genome.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  11. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Here is another look at that same test in comparison to other y-DNA samples taken to 111 markers, but from another viewpoint.

    As you can see, there should be many more markers available for fresh DNA!

    It is preposterous for ANYONE to claim that partial, degraded DNA, which is less than 10 markers (and mostly five to seven markers) is from an "intruder" who killed JonBenet!
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    The graphic below illustrates several points I’d like to make about DNA and the “touch DNA” found on JonBenet’s clothing, the wrist bindings and ligature.

    In the first half of the graphic, I used the names of a few FFJ posters (instead of the actual individuals who contributed the DNA) and took their “DNA” to 13 markers. As I stated before, 12-13 markers is considered the minimum for accurate DNA testing. The top section of the graphic demonstrates how a DNA sample SHOULD look if the DNA was fresh, non-degraded, and viable. By the way, this DNA was collected only using a cheek swab.

    The second half of the graphic illustrates how a DNA lab could have differentiated between the DNA of seven separate individuals, even with some of their DNA markers missing.

    For instance, let’s say BobC is the person who donated the barely 10-marker DNA sample found in the Distal Stain 007-2 on JonBenet’s clothing, so I have removed all but 10 markers from his analysis.

    We have been told all of the rest of the “touch DNA” is less than 10 markers, so for the next four individuals, Cherokee, Cynic, DeeDee and Elle, I have removed all but seven markers. We know at least one “touch DNA” sample consisted of seven markers, and I’m being generous in my illustration to show three other samples at seven markers when they were probably less.

    Next, we know one “touch DNA” sample consisted of six markers and another was made up of only five markers, so I have taken away all but six from Heymom and five from Koldkase.

    As you look at the gaping holes in the second half of the graphic, you can see why it is so frustrating to hear Mary Lacy (and other Ramsey apologists) say the partial, degraded DNA is enough to be a live, flesh and blood intruder! Furthermore, we know that there is partial DNA from at least five different men and one woman! It is contaminant and artifact, pure and simple!

    How do we know these partial samples are from six different individuals and not one partial and degraded intruder?

    If you look at the second half of the graphic, you will see that even with the few numbers available at each loci, none of the individuals match completely. That is because there is at least one number in each sample that is different from the others at the standard loci that were tested. Even though this is merely an illustration, the same method applies to DNA labs. They compare the DNA numbers at certain loci to determine if there is a match or not. One non-matching number is enough to say the sample comes from a separate individual.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    The fact that the DNA is degraded ALONE should be sufficient to prove that it was not left at the time of the crime and has NOTHING to do with the crime.
     
  14. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Yes, DeeDee, you would think so, wouldn't you!

    But we're dealing with Boulder and Alex Hunter, and Mary Keenan Lacy, and a whole host of other corrupt and IDIotic individuals! Instead of looking at the truth, they'd rather manufacture an intruder out of partial and degraded DNA!
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  15. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Member

    I love visuals, as they are an easier way for me to learn! Cherokee, thank you as that helped me understand what you taught me Monday night, even more so!!

    This is what is so scary about touch DNA imho. The results you get are based upon the interpretation of the party 'reporting' the results, vs the person running the test. Scary when you think that someone could be convicted of a crime based on strictly 'touching' someone.
     
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Sunnie, that's why "touch DNA" is considered experimental and not allowed in US court rooms!

    Because of the possibility of innocent transfer and contamination, it IS dangerous to assume anything about "touch DNA," and that's why it is currently not admissable for evidence in a trial! But hey, that didn't stop Mary Keenan Lacy from "exonerating" the Ramseys based on "touch DNA"!

    Furthermore, now Lacy claims she didn't "know" there was more than one donor of "touch DNA"! It's right there in the report according to Kolar's book. Obviously, Lacy only took what she wanted people to believe and left the rest.

    Lacy manipulated.
    Lacy exonerated.
    Lacy lied.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  17. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    What most of the general public doesn't realize, and the media won't investigate, is that Lacy did NOT use conventional DNA analysis to exonerate the Ramseys! Lacy used experimental "touch DNA" that is not allowed as evidence because it is so controversial and liable to contamination.

    THIS is the DNA "evidence" used by Lacy to exonerate her friends, the Ramseys! Remember, Lacy said she did not want to damage her relationship with the Ramseys by investigating them further or asking for medical records. What ethical DA refuses to investigate suspects because they don't want to damage their relationship with them?!!

    Here is the absolute truth: the Ramseys HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED by DNA!

    They have been given a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD by their personal friend, DA Mary Keenan Lacy, who REFUSED to answer any questions about that exoneration OR release any information regarding the DNA analysis for examination and duplication!

    Think about it: the crime scene was staged, the ransom note was fake, Burke had problems no one wants to talk about, JonBenet had been sexually (digitally) molested before the night of her death, and the Ramseys refused to cooperate with investigators! To top that off, the Grand Jury indicted them after hearing a year's worth of testimony, but Alex Hunter refused to prosecute!

    There was no intruder. John and Patsy failed to protect JonBenet from sexual abuse, and when she was fatally hit in the head that Christmas night (possibly by Burke in a fit of rage), John and Patsy covered up what happened. For them, the truth was worse than living a lie. They had already lost one child; they didn't want to lose another and lose the illusion of a perfect family living the perfect life.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  18. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Member

    I am very happy to hear that touch DNA is not allowed in a court room. The implications of how it could be used are scary beyond belief. Money talks in court rooms throughout the world. This, unfortunately is not only an American problem.

    As for Mary Lacy and Alex Hunter, Lin Wood, among others, find themselves in need of a good team of lawyers!

    Cherokee, thanks again for all the great information!
     
  19. heymom

    heymom Member

    Heymom will heretofore be contacted only through her lawyer. She will make no statements about her presence at the crime scene or any of her DNA being located anywhere in the world.

    :ziplip:
     
  20. OpenMind4U

    OpenMind4U Member

    Cherokee,

    First of all, thank you very-very much for the lesson I wouldn't be able to learn on my own! Very interesting. Even after reading Kolar's book and hear you and him talking about, I couldn't clearly understand the details which leads you (and now us!) to the conclusion you knew right away. Can you imagine how many people who did read Kolar's book has the same 'what is it mean'? reaction.

    On the large scale, the knowledge of DNA and touch-DNA opens alot of appotunities for ordinarly people in the future, especially in medical DIAGNOSTIC field, at the minimum. So, the more we (ordinarly patients) educates ourself - the more we can accept or reject the prescribed by doctor treatment. Maybe soon, the subject of DNA/touch-DNA would be in school program....but today, we are not there yet... So, where I'm going with it?

    AH and ML are corrupted individuals, period. However, I'm sure that their knowledge of DNA/touch-DNA at that time was close to zero. So, they relied on experts like you, right? Someone who's knowledgable and honest. From what I did read in Kolar book, looks to me that someone wasn't telling ML the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' about the lab result.

    And here I comes to the main point of this post (sorry, for taking few detours here:).... Who's responsible of feeding wrong (and/or incomplete) information to DA? What's the name of the people who interpreted the result of DNA/touch-DNA analysis? Do we know their names (in addition to the name in Kolar book)?

    If ML cannot be prosecuted for the wreckless actions then I'm sure her DNA expert advisors SHOULD be. And if laboratory who produced these result doesn't want to get 'black eye' in pulicity then this lab and people who works with JBR samples and signed their names in report, should admit their wrong doing in WRITING, TODAY. I think public needs to know the truth. And it'll definately NOT come from ML....so, we need another way to retrieve it.

    Long shot...but maybe it worth it to try!???

    jmo
     
  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