Rogue DNA

Little,
You are correct.
The spin team hung onto very fragile strands. Too bad they couldn't/can't see the facts and logic of the case. Sometimes it seems so simple to me.

 

ahhhh and look what I found at the bb...posted today no less.

 

Eh? :sleuth: What exactly is 'non-brutal' about a 7 inch crack in a skull?

 

could be

It was brutal but certainly could have been done by a loving parent who snapped. Has been done countless times. More often than by a stranger. That is a fact.

 

Absolutely. That's what I personally think happened.
I don't think Patsy was an habitual abuser of JBR. But that frightful night, I think ole Patsy snapped and did the unthinkable. She murdered her child and covered it up.

 

Anyone care to make a list?

I'll start:

 

Back to DNA for a bit, this story appears. As day after day passes and the time is drawn out further and further when the intruder theorists might be able to put someone on trial in JonBenet's death, the probability also increases that a canny defense lawyer will be able to leverage the DNA evidence to his own advantage:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2007/04/27/rayner-trial.html

 

As always WN, Thank you for bringing this here.

It's so damn frustrating that everyone doesn't see what we can see in black and white, which is bad enough; but then they turn around and interpret it in ways/scenarios that one would have to be hallucinating on some really strong LSD to agree with

:help:

 

Bridging the Gap

"Bridging the Gap
The “CSI factor†has caused juries to expect forensic evidence in a case, but when the evidence is picked apart and science fails to convict, who is to blame? Take a look back at some of the high profile forensic cases like OJ Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey. Was it a case of the evidence being analyzed improperly or was the evidence mishandled?

In order to have data quality, you will need a standard against which to compare the data. Countless times witnesses have testified with evidence only to be challenged because they could not substantiate that the sample had not been contaminated or tampered with."

 

Excellent Little. Thanks for the informative post.

 

Thanks tylin. This might be a good source for research too. It's really difficult to find articles that the average person can wrap their mind around. (I'm so average that it has to be really really spelled out!)

I have made a few attempts to get some answers about why one DNA source is so good and the other is ?degraded? if they were left at the same time, not that I believe they were left at the same time. It would just be good to know if there is some valid science to explain it.

Little

 

Little, the DNA found on JonBenet was not "left" at the same time. Her DNA was fresh, which came from her own body. The degraded DNA was either not "left" at all, but picked up by her somewhere else before that night, or was "left" on the undies when a factory worker sneezed or coughed on the fabric during production or packaging or some other innocent way, or when the medical examiner used tainted fingernail clippers on the body, etc.

Those waiting for the partial DNA to find them an intruder are living in fantasy land. The lack of a match by PERV Karr wasn't because the DNA has to match "the killer", but because PERV Karr claims to have...done things...that would have left his DNA, and it wasn't there, and because other claims he made were also not true, like that he brought the size 12-14 Bloomies underwear with him, he "hung" her by her wrists, etc. Fortunately, Tracey never carefully read the LE transcripts or depositions of the Ramseys, or he'd have cued PERV Karr on those little issues that are so important when you're trying to confess to a crime you didn't commit.

Anyhow, is that what you are asking, Little? Or did you already know this and were asking something else I missed?

Oh wait, I reread and think you're saying you are looking for an explanation IF the samples were fresh and left at the same time, how could they THEN end up with one degraded and the other not?

Contamination or mishandling are possibilities, but I think that's mostly just a defense card they like to play. Of course, it can happen, as in the fingernail clipper question, but we've never heard the medical examiner ever testify to anything in this case, and I'd bet we never will, so no way to know first hand if that even happened.

I don't believe that any cogent argument can be made that both samples were left by an intruder that night and that's that lucky killer got his ONE CELL he left behind degraded and broken down by some mishap in the lab or handling. It's a silly argument, IMO, that he would have left ONE CELL behind. But that's just me.

 

Lawyers go to law school because they can't handle science.

 

Yes! That's what I have been looking for KK, something from a reliable person of science to give A, B, C reasons for this. Maybe I'm just not asking the right questions when I try to contact someone??? It seems like a simple question to me. If it was contamination during collection it would seem like they could tell that too, right?

This is the last piece that the RST has had to hang its hat on.

Little

 

LOL Paradox, yet they try to lead a jury to believe that they can.

Little

 

Here's the problem I've always had with the alleged DNA on JBR's underwear. All we have to go on is what Lin Wood and Lou Smit and the Ramseys have said publicly. They are the ones who have hyped up this "DNA" thing. Mary Lacy has given some half-as$ed remarks about the DNA, but one can never get anything solid from that one. During the Karr debacle, didn't she say something to the effect that the DNA evidence wasn't very good? I don't remember exactly what she said, but it verified for me what I've strongly expected right along - that the DNA was questionable, at best. Is it DNA or is it something else? Is it stutter? I don't even have to go to the swamp to know that the DNA expert jameson (heh) will state emphatically that it is definitely DNA, but jameson has spun a lot of jello in her span as queen of the swamp, and I don't believe anything she says. Furthermore, her reputation preceeds her, so believe her at your own peril.

So, think about it. What lab has told us that the sample they found mixed in with JB's blood DNA was actually DNA and not stutter? If it is DNA, what lab has told us that DNA qualifies for CODIS (it doesn't, according to the FBI CODIS website). Who told us it was accepted by CODIS for their files? Jameson. Lou Smit. Lin Wood. Mary Lacy has never said it was accepted. She doesn't make statements about the case. So, should we just accept the RST's version of the DNA issue? I think not.

Until an expert from the DNA labs that tested the alleged DNA testifies in court, we have to accept that everything we've been told about the DNA has come from the RST, and even though we discuss it, all our discussions are based on the RST's spin and not on scientific evidence that has been given by qualified and involved experts who worked on the DNA aspect of the case. It is, therefore, exaggerated hearsay and more likely, BS.

 

If I recall correctly, Melinda Weber (I think that's her name) from CellMark, the lab that tested the samples in the JonBenet case, said that stutter cannot be ruled out as the cause for the extra markers in the fingernail and underwear samples.

As WY explained, and Weber too, in PCR amplification, old, damaged or degraded DNA is amplified as well, and any extra markers that show up could mean that more than one person's DNA is in the sample - or the extra markers could be stutter. I read somewhere (maybe here) that in the JonBenet case, the extra markers from her fingernails don't match the extra markers from her underwear. What does this indicate? Anyone know?

EDITED TO ADD: Webers' first name might be Melissa, not Melinda.

 

Actually, what the RST has said is that the markers from her fingernails DO match the foreign markers from her underwear. What they fail to say, until years after the fact, is that there were only 3 (alleged) viable "markers" from the foreign fingernail DNA. If that is true, that would make that sample extremely degraded and not qualified to be matched up with anything. It would appear that what the RST has done is compare those (alleged) 3 viable markers from the fingernal DNA with the (alleged) 9 viable (alleged) markers in the panty foreign DNA. Not only is that not acceptable science, it is crappy reasoning, because without the rest of the DNA that goes with the 3 markers, it is ludicrous to try to compare it with anything.

CODIS requires 14 loci the last I checked for their DNA comparison files. The panty DNA (according to the RST) had 9 good markers and one iffy marker. That adds up to 9 markers (iffy can't be counted in CODIS), not 14.

This is what I mean when I say don't believe the DNA crap that comes from the RST. It's possible that those three markers in the fingernail DNA match three markers in my, or your, own DNA. But the other necessary markers aren't there, so they can't be compared, and, if they were, they wouldn't match. Such is the stupidity of the RST, or perhaps I should say, such is the stupidity of the RST to think knowledgeable and reasonable people can't analyze their spin and separate the BS from the... well, it's all BS.

 

Thank you for your "Bridging The Gap" post, Little, and bringing WY back to talk about DNA. I am so envious of her knowledge of DNA. It is such a difficult subject to understand.

 

:yay: That's exactly what I am looking for Watching You. Someone from a qualified, unbiased source to give us the skinny on just what exactly that DNA is. Either A or B or C, maybe all three, but something that doesn't come from a Ramsey source. If it's not what the RST wants to hear it will be labeled biased, but we've all come to fully expect that.

I can't remember where I read this, Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but IMO that's something the RST should keep in mind when they go into convulsions over the suggestion that the DNA may mean nothing. They still have that packing peanut to hang their hats on.

Little