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

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by AMES, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Elle, I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are you asking if the composition of our DNA changes when we die? If so, the answer is no. Nothing can change the composition of our DNA. What can change is the quality of the sample containing the DNA. Under certain conditions, the DNA can degrade and it can become contaminated. A blood sample from a bloody crime scene containing a mixture of victim's (or victims') or killer's DNA is considered contaminated. Anything foreign in a sample of DNA is contamination.

    Degradation of DNA is usually caused by improper storage or environmental conditions.

    One example of how DNA doesn't change is the 9-11 tragedy. Those people on the airplane were blown apart. I doubt very much if they ever recovered enough of them to test. The people in the buildings, however, were crushed and some were found in pieces. I feel lousy about using them as a reference, and I do so in great reverence, because it's important to understand how the remains were identified. A foot, even a toe, could identify a victim (I could just cry thinking about this).

    Another example is identifying the remains of people dead for many years. Scientists can recover DNA from bone marrow and even hair. Decomposition doesn't change DNA, but extreme decomposition can probably make retrieving the DNA not very pleasant.

    Here's a good one for you: what happens to the DNA in patients such as leukemia patients or other cancer patients who have their bone marrow destroyed by high-dose radiation or chemotherapy? Not long ago I read about man who could have gone to prison for a severe sexual assault. The DNA from semen was the same as this man's. However, when the crime was committed, this same man was already in jail on another charge. It turned out that the man who actually committed the sexual assault was bone marrow donor, and the man in jail was the recipient.

    The man in jail will forever carry the DNA of the marrow donor. Could get tricky in court...
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Apparently, bone marrow (or is it stem cell?) transplants can cause temporary changes to DNA. That if DNA was extracted from the blood and comared to the DNA of the skin, they would be different. I think it's only temporary though. Makes sense. I suppose this might apply in blood transfusion situations too.
     
  3. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Has any info been released about Patsy's or John's DNA being found on the longjohns also?
    Of course it would be 'normal' for at least Patsy's DNA to be there (and even John's since he carried the dead body upstairs), but supppose Patsy's DNA was found in exactly the same location as the foreign DNA, then wouldn't this support a transfer theory (= she as the stager of the scene touched the DNA in the underwear and transferred it to the longjohns)?
     
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Actually, it's both stem cell and bone marrow transplants. However, the results are not temporary, they are permanent. All blood cells are manufactured in the bone marrow. When a person's own bone marrow is destroyed and replaced with donor marrow, the blood DNA will forever be that of the donor.

    You are right about the skin DNA and blood DNA being different, though, although, in time, the skin DNA can become contaminated with the donor DNA. Kinda scary.
     
  5. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    I didn't say anything of the kind. I said that you knew of this.
     
  6. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Haven't heard a thing. I suspect this is exactly why the DA has clammed up.
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    I guess that's what I was asking you WY, if the composition of our DNA changes (?). I'm so glad I asked you to receive this educational reply. So death doesn't change it? You really did learn a lot when you worked for that DNA expert. It's good to have you on hand. That is a strange story about the bone marrow donor. It sounds like something we would see in one of those CSI series. Not fiction, just the truth. So much to learn about this DNA business. Thank you.
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Here's an article about it. It's a "Good Grief" one.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825234.600
     
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Be gentle with her, Don't want the Diva's pout to come out. That would be more than I could bear...
     

    Attached Files:

  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member


    Okay...let me put it another way: I MISUNDERSTOOD you to say that I had "seen" Van Zandt in PERSON.

    Sorry, I'm having problems communicating all the way round today.... :stupid1:
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    HA! You spend your every waking minute trying to find ways to put me in a POUT!

    Ba'-heid :pirate:
     
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here is the thread with the transcript of Nancy Grace's show discussing Lacy's colossal blunder of clearing the Ramseys because of the "touch" DNA. While the Bode scientist kept calling the "touch" DNA "skin cells", SHE IN FACT LATER STATED IT WAS "MOST LIKELY" SKIN, NOT THAT IT ABSOLUTELY IS FACTUALLY FROM SKIN CELLS:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9273

    "WE BELIEVE...MOST LIKELY...MAYBE..."? WHAT?!!

    What kind of CLEARING is going on here? I can't see how this scientist can speak repeatedly of this "touch" DNA being SKIN CELLS left when "touching" the longjohns, and then when asked POINT BLANK if they ARE in FACT skin cells, say "most likely", as if it's not important enough to be 100% POSITIVE WHEN A CHILD WAS MURDERED!

    It kind of seems to be THE WHOLE POINT!!

    But hey, ANY DISINFORMATION IN A STORM !! :steamed:
     
  13. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Don't give it a second thought. I have my moments like that as well.
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    It's called "hedging your bets"
     
  15. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    If you remember the movie "Jurassic Park" the premise was that DNA from the blood of dinosaurs was contained in the bodies of mosquitos trapped in fossilized amber. While the movie was fiction, the premise is correct in that DNA remains unchanged by death, even fossilization, no matter how much time has gone by.

    The fact that bone marrow recipients will forever have the DNA of the donor is very scary. Even though in court, the procedure would be noted, DNA evidence is increasingly used to link people to crimes. I know certain religions forbid such procedures, like blood transfusions, and maybe they are on to something!
     
  16. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    While DNA is one of the most important scientific discoveries since human life began on this earth, it does have its problems. I personally think that as time goes by, both the advances in the uses of DNA and the problems will grow, proportionately.

    Many people believe that using DNA as a means of identification is the extent of what DNA can do. But, DNA is so much more important than just identification. The experiments scientists are conducting right now may someday (even soon) provide cures for all kinds of diseases, including cancer, which is really not one disease but many, and I think that is, and should be, the number one goal for scientists.

    On the negative side, however, that manipulation of genes in the wrong hands could produce some not-so-wonderful results. Also, as scientists get more knowledgeable in the uses of DNA, so will the criminals, because, just because one is a criminal doesn't mean he's not smart. Already, the criminals know how to plant DNA at a crime scene in order to cover up their own involvement.

    What most of us know about DNA is not much. Understanding DNA itself requires a lot of serious study about molecules, proteins, chromosomes, sequences....
     
  17. AMES

    AMES Member

    I have Wendy on the brain, LOL..I MEANT MARY LACY!!!! Geesh! I tried to edit but it wouldn't let me.
     
  18. AMES

    AMES Member

    Haven't heard a thing, BUT...the process used for touch DNA totally destroys or removes "irrelevant" DNA. My guess would be that Patsy or John Ramsey's touch DNA would be "irrelevant", and therefore destroyed in the process of getting the "relevant" touch DNA that belonged to the "intruder". How CONVENIENT!
     
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I just did it for you. :)

    After so many minutes have gone by, only mods can edit a post.
     
  20. AMES

    AMES Member

    Thanks Cher!

    LOL..yeah, I posted that DAYS and DAYS ago, so no wonder I couldn't edit. I had never tried to edit something that old before, so I didn't realize that only the Mods could do it after many minutes had gone by. Thanks again, you are a real sweetheart!! I should have noticed that HUGE, HUGE mistake..but, evidently it slipped right by me. That's what I get for not proof reading my own posts.
     
  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