A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Feb 17, 2013.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Don't pull any punches, Chero! Tell us how you REALLY feel! :rolling:

    No LE or DAs on Team Ramsey are ever going to admit the truth, if they have to go blind and deaf psychosomatically to keep from doing so.

    In all honesty, it's my opinion that they don't even need to go that far: they simply are corrupt to the core of their black hearts, so the truth is as meaningless to them as those oaths they took to uphold the law.

    But the only people they're fooling are those who want to be fooled.
     
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I could swear I heard you and Tricia lighting cigarettes after Dr. Krane said that. "Ohhhh, sweet mystery of life, I'm glad I found you...."
     

    Attached Files:

  3. cynic

    cynic Member

    LOL, I guess I should have muted the phone.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  4. cynic

    cynic Member

    Transcript of Dr. Dan Krane’s DNA info related to the JBR case: Tricia’s radio blogcast, Sunday, August 18, 2013
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern
    (Special thanks to KoldKase for her help with the transcript.)

    Dr Krane’s website:
    http://www.bioforensics.com/

    Dr Krane’s CV:
    http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf

    The following begins at 52:30 and extends to the end of the show segment with Dr. Krane

    Cynic: I cannot let you go, Dr Krane, without your thoughts regarding the DNA evidence in the JonBenet case. I know that when we spoke, and when we emailed one another, you made some interesting comments that need to be said, so I’m going to give people a real quick lead-in and then let you take it away.
    I don’t want to get into the minutia of the DNA case primarily because I don’t have the time, but I would like to focus on the DNA that’s been in the mainstream media for many years with respect to the JonBenet case.
    One area in the crotch of JonBenet’s underpants that was tested revealed a profile that was ultimately uploaded to the FBI database, CODIS.
    JonBenet was the major donor by virtue of contributing blood, and there was an unknown minor male profile from unknown cellular material.
    That minor unknown male profile was a mixed profile with drop-out because only 10 out of 13 loci were found.
    In 2008 the long johns which were worn over the underpants were sent to a private lab, Bode, as I’ve already touched on before, and they did razor scraping and so on, and it was publicly revealed that this testing resulted in DNA profiles which, while weaker than the CODIS profile, were considered to match.
    So we know that these profiles were 9 loci or less.
    There are, of course, a number of possible transfer mechanisms between two articles of clothing, one worn tightly over the other, you know, it could have been transfer based on that.
    It could have been something that happened perhaps at the autopsy, perhaps proper safeguards weren’t in place.
    Things were touched, even with gloves, it doesn’t matter, if you’re touching certain evidentiary items if you touch others without changing your gloves it’s possible that that could be a source of contamination.
    Even the coroner or medical examiner, if handling instruments that weren’t properly cleaned, could have transferred from previous autopsies, and so on; there’s just a number of ways, as we’ve touched on throughout this broadcast in terms of transferring DNA evidence.
    I would like to focus, however, on the fact that this was a mixed sample with drop-out-- and by drop-out I mean we don’t have information at all of the loci. For example, if I were to take a swab, a cheek swab, and send it to the lab I would have all thirteen of the CODIS loci light up and there would be a full profile.
    These are partial profiles, also mixed; at least we know for a fact that the blood spot was mixed because it primarily had JonBenet’s blood.
    You’ve made the statement, and it’s one that I’ve actually never heard before. You’ve told me that there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred. You then went on to tell me that, essentially what this means is that, in your opinion, from the evidence that I sent you that this DNA evidence really could not be presented in court. Could you comment?
    Dr Krane: I’m sad that you hadn’t heard that before because that means that we’re not doing a good enough job of getting the word out, and often a big part of my job when I get involved with a case is educating attorneys and educating juries about things like that: that at the present time there is no generally accepted means of attaching a statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where drop-out may have occurred. In other words, we’re getting partial or incomplete information about one of the contributors.
    Now, in an unmixed sample, we can deal with drop-out; but in a mixed sample, I don’t think we have the time for me to explain to you the underlying reasoning behind it, but it’s just not possible for us at the present time. It’s not for lack of trying.
    At the Forensic Science Service (based in the UK), before it went out of business a few years ago, had invested millions of pounds into solving this problem. There are some people now starting to say that there might be some way to attach weight to those kinds of samples. But here’s what it all comes down to: there’s an abundance of case law within the United States that says that if you can’t attach a statistical weight to a DNA inclusion, saying that someone matches an evidence sample, if you can’t put a number on that--one in a million, one in a quintillion, something like that-- you can’t admit it as evidence. It is not something that can be presented to a jury because they simply won’t know what weight to give it if you can’t attach a reliable statistical weight. So, absent a statistical weight all that can really be said is, about a mixed sample where drop-out might have occurred, is that the test results are inconclusive. We simply are in no better position to say if an individual has contributed to a profile or not, relative to where we were before the test or after the test was performed.
    So, the samples that you’re talking about here, the blood stain in the JonBenet Ramsey case from the crotch of the panties, I think at the end of the day that’s simply not something that could be presented to a jury. Now it could be used to generate investigative leads, law enforcement could use Ouija boards to generate investigative leads if they like…
    Tricia: Exactly, there you go.
    Dr Krane: …but it’s not something that you could talk about in court.
    Tricia: Exactly.
    Cynic: Tricia, this is concerning Mary Lacy, our “friend,” so I would be remiss if I let Dan go without this real quick point.
    We also spoke about this:
    The District Attorney went from saying this in 2006: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s… “
    To, in 2008, saying: “Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.”
    When you and I talked I just asked you as a hypothetical, if a District Attorney is, for example, exonerating people that were suspects for many years based exclusively on the DNA that we’ve just discussed here, is that an overreach?
    Dr Krane: Well, let me draw particular attention to the word, “exclusively”: right, if that is the sole basis for the decision, I think that conveys a lack of understanding of what’s involved with those particular types of DNA test results.
    Tricia: Thank you, perfect, keep going – I just wanted to hear that. That’s exactly what we wanted to hear. Please continue and we’ll wrap it up.
    Dr Krane: Well, I don’t know that there’s too much more to say. It’s an overreach in the sense that, again, we’re talking here about something that couldn’t be presented to a jury and it’s an overreach because it seems to be violating, or it has the potential to violate, that axiom that I began with: that the presence of a DNA profile doesn’t necessarily say anything about the time frame or the circumstances. We can’t say that it got there because it was deposited during the commission of a crime; we can’t say it got there because the laundry had been done in a way that got somebody else’s DNA there; or it could have come there through contamination after the evidence had been collected and handled in a lab. There’s so many different ways that the DNA could have gotten there that, that by itself, those partial profiles, that’s not something that we should be attaching that kind of weight to.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    cynic,

    I still have to listen to the full broadcast. Heard a part of it. I have so much to catch up on. I do enjoy reading all these incredible intelligent posts by all of you. I had to laugh at KK's remarks relating to the "Sweet Mystery Of Life" song but geesh you are all too young to know about that song, surely! When I was a very young girl, my two older sisters
    drooled over Nelson Eddy singing with Jeanette MacDonald -
    "Ah Sweet mystery of Life, at last I've found you!"

    Thank you "one and all" again for the wonderful posts here!
     
  6. Elle

    Elle Member

    cynic,

    Finally listened to the full broadcast right now. Sorry time ran out at the end for you to say all you wanted to say. Tricia as per usual is in in full control of her show, and you all did a good job of asking questions; some of which were naturally way over my head with this DNA situation. I was more than sorry to hear Dr. Krane say these DNA results are not as reliable as we all thought they once were. The situation of one's DNA being passed around at a crime scene through just shaking a hand is frightening. All I can think of now is the wrong people may well be in jail for a crime they didn't commit.

    Thank you for having the courage to speak on the radio. cynic.
     
  7. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    This TouchDNA thing is so out of control imo. I am still jaw-dropping open-mouthed that Mary Lacy issued an apology letter and exoneration based on TouchDNA.

    I would venture a guess that most convictions don't rest only on one piece of evidence even it's DNA. Even DNA from body fluids such as semen found in the "usual suspected places" could be explained away in some cases (such as a suspect admitting they'd had sex with someone) and would require additional evidence for a conviction. But semen found anywhere on a six-year-old would be a horse of different color.

    My main gripe about DNA in court is that I'm afraid television programming has misguided the public. I try to keep in mind that television programing is centered on getting good ratings so they can make more money so they can stay on air and ... make more money. I think the programs usually just misinform the public. :duped:

    So thankful to the powers that be who got the good doctor to come on air and discuss DNA and TouchDNA. (Tricia, cynic, whoever it was ... thank you!)
     
  8. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Hear, hear! Excellent post, and I totally agree!

    Most of the American public and press believe Mary Lacy's DNA hoodwink because they think they know more about DNA than they really do.

    Mary Lacy's exoneration is worthless but she got away with it because no one in a position of power in Colorado will undo it. Sure, a lot of us protested and a few in LE protested, but it wasn't enough to make anyone do a d*mn thing about it! Her "exoneration" still stands and is quoted in EVERY Ramsey article done by the mainstream media and quite a few idiot blogs.

    I appreciate Dr. Krane taking the time to be on Tricia's program and set the record straight about "touch DNA" and Lacy's *** exoneration, but do you see anyone quoting him since then in an article on the Ramsey case? Do you see ANY mention of his excellent discussion of the DNA in the mainstream media? Are they giving Dr. Krane equal press time to all the time they've given Lin Wood, Mary Lacy, and "if my lips are moving, I'm lying" John Ramsey?

    The unfortunate answer is NO. The truth about the Ramsey DNA is never shouted from the rooftops, but let Mary Lacy open her big fat hair-curtain mouth, and it goes national and viral. The press RUNS to Lin Wood for any quote on the subject. They have John Ramsey on speed dial for any mention of his name in any article, but a person can send out press release after press release WITH THE TRUTH, and it never gets a peep.

    YES, I'm bitter, and YES, I'm angry. I'm infuriated with the double standard that we've always had with the Ramsey case. The mainstream press has drooled and fawned over the Ramseys since the beginning and has never once taken a hard look at the real evidence. Instead, they've given us softball interviews and "the poor Ramseys this, and "the poor Ramseys that."

    Not even Steve Thomas' book about the corruption in the Boulder DA's office and evidence of Ramsey guilt in JonBenet's death, or James Kolar's book that greatly furthered our knowledge of Ramsey guilt, or the now-known fact that the Boulder Grand Jury DID indict the Ramseys, but Alex Hunter refused to prosecute, HAS MADE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE in piercing the media's lock-step love affair with the Ramseys! It's pathetic, and it's maddening!

    The current Boulder DA needs to invite Dr. Krane to Colorado, and have Dr. Krane give everyone in the office and LE a lesson in touch DNA. Then they need to have a press conference and have Dr. Krane tell everyone what he has told them and us, THEN the current DA needs to send out a press release that he is revoking Lacy's exoneration since it is not based on scientific evidence.

    It is beyond me why NO ONE has officially revoked Lacy's exoneration before now! What she did wasn't legal or ethical to begin with, and it was based on a faulty understanding of DNA. Why hasn't the current DA said Lacy's exoneration of the Ramseys was all a crock and the Ramsey aren't cleared of anything? Are they afraid of Mary Lacy or of hurting her reputation? (Don't make me laugh; has everyone forgotten about the John Mark Karr fiasco?) Is this some kind of weird professional courtesy not to come out and say what everyone in LE knows? I don't understand the silence.

    Just saying "no one has been removed from the umbrella" is NOT a strong enough statement. Did the press pick up on that one? NO. There has been NOTHING said by anyone in a position of authority to negate Lacy's little Ramsey-love shenanigan. It will take SOMEONE with enough name and power to refute what Lacy did before the press will halfway listen.

    Just once, before I die, I would like to read a mainstream news article on the Ramsey case WITHOUT the obligatory paragraph about how the Ramseys were cleared of their daughter's death through DNA by the Boulder DA's office.

    It makes me sick every time I read the lie.
     
  9. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    I totally agree with everything you said Cherokee. It is infuriating. It is almost, to me, an embarrassment to my home country that our system allows that crap. If it is any comfort, :cheerup: I do know several people who aren't persuaded by the talking heads on television (I'd just as soon watch commercials myself).

    While you are in such a good mood, here's something I found today on CNN (they aren't my favorite station anyway and they just moved down another notch):

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/us/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-fast-facts/index.html

    I will give them credit for the last "fact" they posted. Maybe it will get the ball rolling. Maybe we should sic Piers Morgan on them. :)
     
  10. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    BOESP and Cherokee I agree with both of you and what you are saying. This case will never go any farther than where it is now because of the dunderheads that are "in charge" and those who came before them.

    I don't know if you heard last night's show of Tricia's blogtalk radio show and her guest David Lohr from the Huffington Post True Crime section. What interested me the most was his telling of the journalists of today and how lazy they are in their reporting. They just take what someone else has done and rehash it out as their own. He says that no one really does any hard investigating any more for their stories. They are after ratings not facts. The more salacious they can make the story the better the top brass at the station or news organization likes it. He is one of a dying breed. He works at getting his facts correct and he goes for the stories that no one else is after like forgotten men who went missing and the child that isn't blonde and very pretty.

    I liked the man very much. This relates to what you are saying in that the top law enforcers in Boulder aren't doing any searching for the truth either with this case. In fact they have blocked it, the truth, from the very beginning. Lazy all of them.
     
  11. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Zoomama, unfortunately, I didn't get to listen to Tricia's show. I will try and remember David Lohr's name. Sounds like he nailed it on the head. The talking heads now days perform the news instead of delivering a straight news story. Nothing irritates me more than some television airhead telling me what I should think about something (I think they call these people analysts -- at least they got part of that right).

    I particularly liked what you said about Mr. Lohr's selections on what to report. Every child is beautiful and I get sick of hearing about "beauty queen." That reminds me. I was reading an old article in people magazine about JonBenet. It was done not long after Princess Diana died. Patsy compared JonBenet to Princess Diana saying JonBenet was America's people's princess just as Diana was England's.

    Here's the link if anyone wants to read it:
    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123391,00.html


    Have a great day!
     
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    It IS an embarrassment, BOESP! We are fooling ourselves if we think we have a free and uncorrupt media. As you said in another post, all they do is copy from each other (and I've said that for years) and try for the highest ratings using the lowest common denominator.

    In today's media, you can't get good investigative reporting, but you CAN get Miley Cyrus doing live sex acts on herself and everyone else on stage, including an married man almost twice her age. I couldn't get away from ANY of it Monday morning. Every news page I clicked couldn't wait to trumpet the strumpet, who looked like a cross-dressing Justin Beiber with jock itch and a tongue Gene Simmons wouldn't have. It was nothing but the latest proof of our cultural demise and the hip-hop/Hollywood demeaning of women into b*tches and hos, who supposedly have no other goal in life but to shove their rears into people's faces and satisfy the selfish fantasies of infantile males. Unfortunately, a lot of females have bought into this degradation and think they are being sexy and desired, when all they are being is USED.

    What happened at the VMAs isn't art, and it had nothing to do with freedom of expression. It was about exploitation, ratings, shock value and money, and unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what our news media is now.

    People write the truth, and no one cares. Idiots like Mary Lacy call press conferences and issue worthless exonerations, and the press comes crawling on all fours, then PROMOTES the lies without investigation. The press no longer reports news; it has become a gossip, passing along the most salacious details about the latest "celebrity," packaging and re-packaging fake reality for the masses. These days, when the truth keeps its clothes on and relies on appealing to intelligence instead of the pelvis, it can't get a look in.

    I guess the next book written about the truth in the Ramsey case should feature a nude Mary Lacy on the cover. Maybe THAT will get us some press!
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
  13. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, Zoomama, for letting me know about David Lohr being on Tricia's show. I'll have to listen to that when I get a chance. It's good to know there are still journalists like David, though there are precious few of them, like he said.

    You are so right about how the media only goes after certain stories and lets the rest die. There are lots of children who go missing or who are killed, but it's only the ones where a certain angle can be pursued (like the "beauty queen") that get lots of press.

    As for Boulder ... I used to think the current DA, Stan Garnett, was a good guy, but now I wonder. It has been over FIVE YEARS since Lacy did her exoneration stunt! FIVE YEARS THIS PAST JULY!!! And Garnett has done NOTHING about it. Not one single thing. He could have very easily issued a non-exoneration, saying the touch DNA did NOT prove anything conclusively one way or another. Beckner wouldn't even have to call Mary Lacy a liar or make waves, he could just say that with further research, the touch DNA didn't matter.

    But NOOOOOOO, Garnett has let Lacy's lie stand for FIVE YEARS, and it has become ingrained in the media and the public eye. Because of his non-action, Garnett is an accomplice to Lacy's DNA stunt AND the destruction of the truth.

    As the saying goes, ... when good people do nothing, evil triumphs. Garnett has done NOTHING, and evil has triumphed. Garnett didn't even have the decency to endorse Kolar's book because he is still trying to play both sides of the fence and protect his arse.

    I'm sorry. Like I said, I used to believe Garnett was going to "uncorrupt" the Boulder DA's office, but after the past FIVE YEARS, I realize he's just like the rest of the Boulder gang. And if he wants to PROVE ME WRONG, he can start by holding a press conference and REVOKING Lacy's worthless DNA exoneration!!!
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 22, 2013
  14. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Aww, that is just sick. JonBenet was NOT the American people's princess. No one but her friends and family even knew who JBR was until she was dead. Patsy would have liked to THINK JBR was some kind of royalty, which, in turn, made Patsy "royalty" and also gave her a rationalization for JBR's death.

    Patsy wanted to be Miss America, and she wanted JBR to be Miss America, so in death, Patsy made JBR "Miss America's Princess" in order to make JBR's death, at the hands of a family member, have a "reason" and be more palatable to her. I guess when you're desperate, you'll reach for any rationalization to keep from blaming the REAL person responsible for JBR's death and your part in the cover-up.

    JonBenet was pimped out and tarted up by her own mother in those pageant outfits, and the overt sexualization was a symptom of even greater dysfunction in that family. Patsy should have been embarrassed about what she did to her daughter, as should all child-pageant moms, but she was too wrapped up in an overwhelming desire for the image of perfection and her own pageant fantasies to notice.
     
  15. Tez

    Tez Member

    I agree with zoomama, David Lohr is great. I wanted to listen to him for another two hours.
     
  16. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Does Mr. Lohr have a daily show or syndicated column or Internet blog?

    Cherokee, you made me spit sweet tea all over my laptop with your post and photo of Lacy.
     
  17. Tez

    Tez Member

    Yes. It's on www.huffingtonpost.com in the crime section. I am trying to put my youngest grand baby to sleep, but he's got a lot of great articles there.
     
  18. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Ha ha ... well, I'm glad my outrage was good for SOMETHING! :D
     
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    I agree with all you're saying here BOESP. I can't get over Mary Lacy
    sending an apology letter and exonerating the Ramseys.
     
  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