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

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

  1. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    TP, I've just sent you a PM back.
     
  2. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Right. And thanks.
     
  3. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Unknown DNA under fingernails not unusual

    http://butts_info.tripod.com/buttsfamily/id22.html
     
  4. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom Member

    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.
     
  5. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    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.
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    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:

    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: Sep 18, 2008
  7. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    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.
     
  8. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Sure would be nice if I could think of something we could DO about it.
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    The only thing that has kept me from pulling my hair out because of the corruption and cover up in this case is that I know that what we, everyone who lives on this earth, sows, so shall we reap. It may have Biblical overtones, but it's one passage in the Bible I've never seen fail, including in my own life.

    What we do to others will come back to get us, ten-fold. It's karma, and it's true. We look at John Ramsey and wonder why karma hasn't got him, yet. It has, and it will continue as long as he lives and into the next life where he will have to face his Maker, just as Patsy did.

    I don't wish bad things on other people (well, mame can drive over a cliff, but other than that...) :nyah:, I don't invite that kind of karma into my life.
     
  10. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom Member

    Our outer skin cells are epithelial cells....the linings of our urinary tract, digestive tract, etc. are also epithelial cells...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithelial_cells

    I was just wondering if they were epithelial cells found and Mary Lacy was assuming they were epidermis cells, when they could have been sourced elsewhere.
     
  11. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Oh Watching You....

    How I wish that you could have your post printed as an article in the New York Times! I don't say the Boulder Daily News etc. because that would NEVER happen and if it did no one in Boulder would ever acknowledge it anyway....

    Wouldn't hurt if you sent your information to the Science editor at the Times anyway....There must be someone in the media out there with half a brain! :) Wouldn't it be wonderful if some young reporter took this Ramsey DNA vindication on as a life mission kind of like the young reporters took on Watergate?

    Hellooo, helloooo, helloooooo....Anybody out there?...
    Old news, cold case, over-exposed story....And I think the fact is that nobody wants to do a story on STUPID....(Can you say Mary Lacy?)

    Voyager
     
  12. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for writing this excellent post #106 WY. I agree with Voyager, it should be on the front page on every Boulder newspaper for starters.
     
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I meant to post this before. I asked Elvis some questions about cells and these are her answers (she is quite happy for me to post this). My questions in blue, her responses in bold black:-

    "I also understand how they can tell saliva cells apart from skin cells. I've been reading up in this. Now the article I have been reading says that saliva contains epithelial cells which are different in construction from outer skin cells. It also said that epithelial cells are found in the rectum and the urinary tract as well as internal organs. Would they be able to tell the difference between epithelial cells in urine and those found in saliva without resorting to other tests? i.e. comparing them microscopically?"

    There are a number of ways that cells can be differentiated. They DO look different microscopically, so for example epithelial cells from inside the mouth (in saliva) look different microscopically than cells shed from the urethra (found in urine). Even cells from the same source can look different if they are precancerous/ cancerous (a pap smear can differentiate normal cervical cells from cancerous cervical cells by looking at them microscopically). There are also other ways of differentiating cells: e.g. elevated levels of amylase indicate the sample was from saliva. Bottom line: cells can be differentiated, but i don;t know if it was done in this case.

    "Also, I have found articles on epithelial cells dating back to the 1960s so would it be wrong to assume that they could tell saliva cells apart from skin cells under a microscope back then?"

    I have a histology text that shows what all the various human cells look like microscopically. This has been known for a looooong time...way before the 1960s.
     
  14. Little

    Little Member

    Touch DNA Identifies Rapist in 1996 Case

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008
    Touch DNA

    Identifies Rapist in 1996 Case
    Crime scene technicians at the Maryland State Police Department and Bode Technology have identified the identity of the man guilty in a 1996 rape of a 12 year old girl thanks to touch DNA.

    Touch DNA, which analyzes genetic material from skin cells left on an item, was recently used to exonerate the parents of JonBenet Ramsey.
    The suspect was indicted of rape on June 13 and will stand trial in December.
    To read the full text, go to www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102276.html.
    http://www.forensicmag.com/News_Articles.asp?pid=370
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    I expect we will be hearing more and more reports like this, Little.
    This one we can understand and praise, but not the touch DNA story related to the JonBenét Ramsey case.
     
  16. Little

    Little Member

    These stories will strike a nerve Elle. It's always "cleared the Ramseys" and, I forget who it was here who said it but it hit the nail on the head, the DNA cleared the Ramseys of being the source of that DNA, but it didn't clear them of a crime.

    Little
     
  17. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Right, Jayelles. I was referring to the DNA itself when I said that under normal testing, science can't tell [from the DNA of that cell] what part of the body the epithelial cells came from. I guess I should have been clearer in my post. Obviously, the cell types can be determined by other means, but not through DNA testing.
     
  18. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom Member

    I wonder if there are any "cells" left untested to visualize microscopically (were they damaged to extract the DNA)?
     
  19. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    In the JBR case, the so-called touch DNA on the waistband of her long johns was tested. Due to Lacy's secrecy (cover up?) regarding this case, nobody outside of the lab that did the testing, Lacy's staff, and probaby John Ramsey and Wood, who are inside the loop, knows the exact area the alleged DNA came from, how big the sample was, and the results of the testing, other than Lacy's insane interpretation of the lab's report. Lacy is counting on the ignorance of the public, and probably her own ignorance regarding DNA, when she announced Ramsey was cleared.

    Every cell in our bodies comes complete with a full complement of DNA, and that DNA is the "brain" of each of our cells. By nature of the DNA testing, itself, the brains, or DNA, is removed from the cell. There are different methods used in the extraction of DNA, but no matter which method is used, once the "brains" of the cell are removed, nothing is left except a damaged, empty cell. Cell walls are breached, some are "beaten, etc.

    The sample used in that testing is destroyed by the testing, as far as future DNA testing on the same sample is concerned. Areas around that sample are also taken for comparison purposes - they are called "control samples." These areas are presumed to be uncontaminated by the foreign DNA being tested - IOW, the perp only touched the area around the waistband that was necessary to pull the clothing down or up on JB. It's part of the quality control iin the testing.

    The chances that the DNA tested belongs to her killer are very slim, and believing what Lacy says in regard to any DNA testing is to not understand the logic. Without calling Lacy an out and out liar, let's just say she has made a huge leap of judgment in her own analysis of what the DNA means. I wish with all my heart that someone would rip the lid off the JBR case, get into the DNA tests, themselves, and tell the truth about it. It's not what Lacy says it is.
     
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Take the BDA to court and force them to release to the public, under the FOIA, the PowerPoint and videotapes that Smit--A PRIVATE CITIZEN--was GIVEN copies of by Hunter after Smit QUIT the DA's Office, with full LEGALLY CONTRACTED permission to use as Smit pleased. As you know, Smit has picked and chosen WHOM he lets have the PowerPoint. He gave jams a copy. He gave various TV producers copies. Michael Tracey and "48 Hours" come to mind. And they USED those copies TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS UNSOLVED MURDER.

    Yet the DA denies anyone ELSE access to those same materials.

    How is that LEGAL? They are ALL private citizens. But YOU try to get a copy, and see how fast they tell you NO.

    I can't believe even a court in Colorado could defend THAT kind of PROPAGANDA in a criminal case. But it wouldn't surprise me.

    Yet it really GALLS me that of all the people who have professed year in and year out they want to do something about the BDA, no one, not even those in the legal profession or with media behind them, will go after this HUGE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN and UNETHICAL PROPAGANDA PERPETRATED BY THE BDA FROM HUNTER AND SMIT TO LACY AND HER RAMSEY SHILLS.

    It's not right. It's not legal. Whether Colorado actually follows the law in COURT on this remains to be seen. If I lived there or had the money to do it, I'd MAKE THEM show their colors on this by forcing the JUDGES IN COURT to DEFEND such FAVORITISM AND CORRUPTION...or END IT. That's the LEAST that we can do.

    Well...you asked.
     
  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