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

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

  1. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you WY for your replies. You were always very patient with DNA queries from me, and it was good to have someone on the spot who knew what they were talking about.

    Patsy is no longer with us, but I believe she was responsible for JonBenét's accidental death, and staging a cover-up. If JonBenét wasn't actually dead at the time of the cover-up, then it could be a homicide. I definitely feel John Ramsey assisted in the staging which incriminates him in this crime, and maybe some day he won't be walking free out there(?).
     
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you KK for your reply. I'm exhausted trying to read it. You do work very hard to find answers in this case. Hopefully your hard work will pay off some day.

    Geesh that was some long drawn out questioning with Chris Wolf and Company. :) Does it ever make me glad I'm not a criminal lawyer.

    I often feel Dr. Henry Lee could have done a lot more than he did.

    It's good your energy level is holding up with all the posting you're doing here. DA Lacy's news about clearing the Ramseys was quite a hard blow to take.

    Good luck with all you're doing KK to still find justice for this innocent little mite, JonBenét Ramsey.
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I once gave John Ramsey a pass. Then I'd go back and forth. Now I have seen too many examples of him lying to LE in this case, as well as in TV interviews, etc., to believe he doesn't at least know what happened. I was recently reading the LKL interview in Dec. of 2006, after Patsy's death and for the 10th anniversary of JonBenet's murder, and John just kept on lying and lying. He said early that he NEVER saw Patsy angry. Before the hour was over, he started talking about HOW ANGRY PATSY WAS OVER GERALDO'S "MOCK TRIAL". He even caught his own lie, but too late, so he just smoothed over the rest of the story.
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, gosh, Elle, I guess at this point I just can't help myself. It's a combination of being stubborn, MORALLY against injustice of any kind, but in the abuse and murder of a child, relentlessly unable to accept it and let it go, no matter how futile any hope of justice being done in our courts.

    Honestly, if the RST didn't keep up their BS attempts to hoodwink the public, I probably would have eventually let it go. But like "the Godfather" said in III, I keep TRRRRYYYYYYYYIIIIIIIG to get out...but they just keep PUUUUUUUUUULLING me back in.... :steamed:
     
  5. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Kold Kase,

    I also would like to thank you for your persistence in what you do in this case. I am a bystander and one who reads everything but doesn't write back. I too am outraged even at this late date that the Ramseys got away with one. Also I'm not computer savvy to be able to go back in this case to look things up.

    In some ways I've sort of given up hope of ever having the true guilty parties brought to justice. But I remain here and am amazed at how you pick a point and develop it in such depths. Thank you for your hard work. I also hope that someday perhaps when John meets his Maker that Burke will have the courage to speak up and once and for all end this case. But nothing surprises me about this case nor will it in the future surprise me. We haven't been given all the info that there is. I don't think we ever will have it because that would show the incompetence of law enforcement/or investigators and anyone else who has handled this case from the beginning. Do I think it will ever go to trial? Perhaps! If some missing pieces of the puzzle are sworn to by any of the doers of the deed then yes it will go to trial.
     
  6. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    The only injuries I can think of are the ones on her back.


    -Tea
     
  7. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Does anyone else feel like I do when I read page after page of dialogue, especially when L. Wood is involved?

    Like you just want to reach through your computer screen and shake the cr*p out of him?
     
  8. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I agree Elle, isn't she amazing re: DNA? I have a plethora of information saved from her over the years...she has been very patient with me as well!
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    KK, regarding the DNAX sample - I remember jameson's talking about DNAX, and if my memory serves me right, I think that DNAX may have been taken from a different part of the crotch of the underwear, and it was allegedly a better sample of the foreign DNA found in the first sample. IOW, it was the same DNA as the original sample but it had more markers in it. That was, I believe, the DNA(X) sample that finally got the sample into the FBI's CODIS system (the one with 9 good and 1 iffy marker.

    I'm not sure what you are referring to. The only unknown DNA source at the crime scene was the one we know about. It's confusing to follow some of the testimony in the transcript, but I'm sure Beckner was talking about the "unknown" DNA that was found in her underwear.

    I'd just like to mention the touch DNA that Lacy used to clear Ramsey. Touch DNA is just that - you touch something, you can leave skin cells there. Had Lacy one operating brain cell, she would have reasoned to herself - if this DNA was transferred through touch DNA, isn't it also possible that the touch DNA got there from the hand of a person who had transfer touch DNA on her hands?

    Here's the scenario:

    Patsy and John Ramsey and their two children attended a Christmas party at the Whites on Christmas night. While at that party they no doubt touched the hands or clothing of the other people at the party. They touched food dishes, they touched silverware (that had been touched by those who put the dishes and silverware there), they touched gifts, they touched doorknobs. Then Patsy delivered gifts to some of their friends on the way home, probably touching those people and their doorknobs, which had been touched by how many other people?

    They also touched the hands of their children, who no doubt were in contact with many other people that day and night. When Patsy or John pulled the long underwear up or down on JB, or when JonBenet went to the bathroom and pulled her clothing both up and down, who is to say they didn't transfer that touch DNA on the underwear, themselves?

    Here's another scenario: the panties themselves had apparently never been laundered but rather were taken straight from the package and put on JB. It would be very reasonable to assume DNA from the persons who handled the panties, both the person who sewed them and the person(s) who packaged them. to have their touch DNA all over the panties, which logically could have been transferred to the long underwear.

    What I'm thinking is that the DNA came from those involved in the manufacturing and shipping of the panties; however, transfer DNA from Patsy or John could also be the answer.

    If I, a mere observer, can figure that out, why on earth can't Lacy figure that out? The answer, I think, is that which could point away from the Ramseys, no matter how flawed the logic and science is, is allowed for consideration by Lacy. Why she thinks a defense lawyer would let her get away with that crap is beyond me, but she'll never try this case, anyway, so what does she care if she damages the case for a future DA who may be a cut above the two recent DAs in Boulder.

    KK's right - in the JBR case, justice will never be served, because there will never be a trial. Too many mistakes have been made - some of them intentional, too many egos have misconstrued and overruled good evidence that leads to the killer and accomplice, and above all, the arrogance and defiance of the Boulder DA and her cronies have forever ruined any chance of obtaining justice for a little girl who deserved to grow up and be everything she could have been. Someone stole her life from her, and the Boulder establishment helped them cover it up. What a sick world we live in.
     
  10. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    You guys are making me out to be more than I am. I learned everything I know about DNA (and the wonderful things that are being accomplished, medically, through DNA) from my ex-boss, who is the real expert. I know only a smidgeon of what he knows, but I know enough to sort the crap from the real. Common sense does the rest. Common sense is a scarcity among the Boulder fools.
     
  11. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Familial DNA Checking

    I have a hunch that this could solve the mystery of the foreign DNA in the Ramsey case. It's a system which has ben used in the UK for a little while and which is in the early stages of use in the US.

    Basically, LE go to the DNA database and ask for a check to be run on a DNA sample. If it turns up a match, fine and good, but if it doesn't, LE then ask them to run a familial DNA check. This checks the database to see if there is someone on file who may be related to the person whose DNA is being investigated.

    You know these tv programs where people want to trace relatives and they use DNA testing to do so? Well it's similar to that. They can also tell HOW someone is related to another person (with a certain degree of probability) and it has to do with how DNA is inherited from our parents - so they can tell if Person A is the parent of Person B or if Person A is a sibling of Person B. That's the simplistic version, in reality it's much more complicated but has yielded excellent results in solving cold cases in the UK. All it could take would be for a relative of the owner of the Ramsey foreign DNA to get a DUI charge and police could use science and a bit of legwork to track him down. How exciting would that be? Of course, they'd still have to explain the presence of this DNA on Jonbenet's clothing and it might be that this would eliminate him as her killer.

    Familial Dna has ethical issues - more so in the US than in the UK. Here, it complies with out very powerful Data Protection laws for reasons for reasons of crime detection and prevention. It's facing harsher opposition in the US but according to one article I read, the only state where it is actually unlawful seems to be Maryland (the article I read may be out of date).

    Would it work in Boulder? That is another story. It appears to me that in Boulder, criminals have more rights than anyone else! There are also objections to familial DNA from Hispanic quarters on the grounds that they have larger families and it would therefore invade the privacy of more of them than any other ethnic group in the US!

    This article offers a good primer on familial DNA:-

    http://www.gov.im/dha/police/csi/familial.xml

    Also, here are som articles that I found on the subject and posted at Crimelibrary:-

    http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290733&page=16

    You'll have to scroll past Shill's ramblings I'm afraid. He completely misunderstood the whole point about familial DNA that the process would be used to search for a relative of the foreign DNA (he seems to think they'd be using it to search for a Ramsey relative). Ignornace (as they say) is bliss :)
     
  12. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Meant to say:-

    The owner of the Ramsey foreign DNA isn't on CODIS and may never be on CODIS. Familial DNA checking will greatly increase the chance of finding him and investigating him.

    Wouldn't it be nice if John Ramsey campaigned for this to be done? (Won't hold my breath waiting on him to do anything to find justice for little JonBenet).
     
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    You're right- you won't find any Rs pushing for this testing and you won't find the Boulder DA pushing for it either, even the new DA.
    They don't want to follow the evidence; they know where it leads.
    They don't need to solve the case- they already have.
     
  14. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Since the stager of the scene touched both the underwear and the longjohns, it is a likely scenario imo.
    The IDIs are currently having a field day with that touch DNA of course, claiming it was from 'skin cells'. True or false?
    Also, they claim it is unusual for DNA to leave nine markers if that DNA was deposed on the underwear during the manufacturing process through a cough or sneeze. True or false?
    I myself know very little about DNA - any help with these questions would be much appreciated. TIA.
     
  15. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Hope I was of help
     
  16. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    You sure were, TP!! Thanks so much.
    Does anyone know how that replicating process works?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2008
  17. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    It extrapolates what the full profile might look like. They're called "shadow bands."
     
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I am currently wading through an excellent article about DNA. Everyone's DNA has repeats which enables them to project a full profile from a fragment. According to the article, unfortunately, not everyone's repeats are the same length so I think there is an error margin involved in this process.

    This is the article:-

    http://www.cs.wright.edu/itri/EVENTS/SUMMER-INST-2003/SIAC03-Krane2.PDF
     
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    According to the article that I've been reading (link provided in previous post):-

     
  20. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, Jay, for the article link.

    The following bears repeating for those who do not understand DNA; specifically

    Boulder DA Mary Lacy

    and others who would exhonerate the Ramseys based on pathetic and unscientific claims regarding DNA.

    "Moreover, these identity claims can be misleading because they imply that there could be no alternative explanation for the “match,†such as laboratory error, and they ignore the fact that close relatives are far more likely to have matching profiles than unrelated individuals.

    They can also be misleading in that the DNA tests themselves are powerless to provide any insight into the circumstances under which the sample was deposited and are generally unable to determine the type of tissue that was involved."
     
  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