Rogue DNA

Unless one realizes how bad that sample of DNA really is, one can't begin to understand how desperate Mary Lacy and her little band of Ramvestigators were to blame anyone but the Ramseys for the murder of JBR. Mary Lacy ADMITTED the DNA is practically worthless; yet, she ran Karr's DNA against that worthless bit of DNA.

I've said it over and over again - that alleged DNA will NEVER convict anyone in court. There are so many holes in that particular angle, any two-year microbiology student could go in and demolish the prosecution's case. Even if they could find someone with 9 markers matching the (again, "alleged") nine markers from the RST-alleged DNA, what about the rest of the markers that are missing? Do we convict people on incomplete DNA in this country? Hell, no, we don't. It's been over 10 years since the murder. Patsy Ramsey is dead. John Ramsey isn't getting any younger, even if he thinks he's still a young stud. There are no other suspects. The ONLY thing that could convict someone at this stage is a confession and follow up investigation that could prove that person was in Boulder the night of the murder.

The RST has actually hurt itself by proclaiming that DNA or stutter, whichever it is, as that of the killer's, because, it is useless. They can't prove when the degraded sample got on her underwear, they can't prove it was left there the night of the murder (very highly unlikely for myriad reasons); they can't prove it's even DNA and not stutter. It has, however, been their "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" leather glove of the JBR case. Such nonsense, but there are a lot of stupid, gullible people in this world.

 

The fact that the Ramseys or their so called team claim this is exculpatory makes me even more fervent in my belief that John is a liar.

He is not a stupid man. He understands the DNA lingo - he knows it is worthless and yet he lists it in the back of his book as exculpatory. That is for all those who refuse to believe that Patsy killed her child and just couldn't have - only the lowly do that.

 

Excellent posts on the DNA, WY. You are so right when you say "Unless one realizes how bad that sample of DNA really is, one can't begin to understand how desperate Mary Lacy and her little band of Ramvestigators were to blame anyone but the Ramseys for the murder of JBR."

In fact, that "DNA" sample is so partial and so worthless, it may not be true DNA at all, but merely stutter as you said. What people (especially RST) fail to realize is we're not dealing with a DNA sample as they see processed on TV shows like CSI. Even a cheek swab with a tiny drop of saliva will have tons of DNA on it with many complete sets of markers - enough to identify a person's mitochondrial DNA line through the mother, and if the person is a male, the Y chromosome line through the dad. To only be able to come up with nine possible markers is basically having nothing but DNA trash.

I have also posted before what you said about there never being a conviction, or even an identification, of JonBenet's killer through DNA because even if the nine markers match, what about the other five that are required for complete identification? You and I might share nine markers, but none of the other five, or only three of the other five. Any two people could share those nine markers, and no one could be convicted because of the five missing markers.

Lin Wood and the Ramseys are smart enough to know that, so when they place all the emphasis on the killer's DNA (conveniently forgetting the killer's "calling card" of the ransom note), they are being disengenious at best, and absolute liars at worst. (I'll take the latter.) They KNOW that DNA is absolutely worthless in "finding and convicting" JonBenet's killer, yet they have flogged it from pillar to post to their book only because they think it helps exhonerate them. Their arrogance in believing we are stupid enough to swallow the DNA lie is actually more insulting than the lie itself.

By the way, my signature contains exactly what Mary Lacey said about the DNA during her press conference on John Mark Karr. She said "the DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s."

Whatever the DNA is, it was not from JonBenet's killer or there would have been a full complement of DNA markers - even if it was only from a microscopic piece of a shedding skin cell. If people (especially the RST) really understood DNA, they would know the so-called partial "foreign DNA" found on JonBenet's underwear is nothing more than a convenient red herring, paraded by the Ramseys before the masses in an attempt to keep them from peeking behind the curtain.

 

Thanks, Cherokee, for pointing me to Lacy's statement in your signature line. 10 lashes with a wet noodle for me...

In most jurisdictions, that so-called DNA should have been investigated, recognized for what it was, and set aside in favor of the overwhelming evidence they do have in the form of the handwriting on the ransom note and other facts of the case. Once again, we have RST influence on what the handwriting experts said about the note. Alex Hunter was a worthless, good-old-boy DA, and Mary Lacy is his clone in female form.

Cherokee's analysis of the handwriting on the ransom note is the most revealing evidence I've seen of Patsy's involvement in her daughter's death. But, even before I saw Cher's analysis, I knew Patsy was all over that note. Everything about it was Patsy's style. She tried to disguise her handwriting (something the RST doesn't seem to comprehend - the handwriting is disguised, duh), but I still recognized it as hers when compared to known samples of her writing. Based on that note, alone, Patsy should have been arrested and tried for, at the very least, complicity in the murder of her daughter.

Of course defense attorneys would have brought in their bought-and-paid-for experts who would say it wasn't Patsy's writing. In that case, were I on that jury, I could have figured it out for myself - I wouldn't have needed the experts.

Some day, maybe 30 years down the road when I'll probably be dead and gone, the Cold Case people will pull this case out, again, and they will say - what happened with this case? Why was this made to be a DNA case when it wasn't? It won't matter then, because the players will have probably all moved on to whatever awaits them on the other side.

 

the cord

Does anyone know if the cord & handle were ever tested for any DNA deposits? It would seem like there might be some skin cells left on either one of those. I'm sure they were tested, but does anyone remember reading about that?

Little

 

No lashes for you, my dear WY. After all, I DO have my sig in fine print.

For a long time, I didn't have a signature, but when Mary Lacy made her statement about the DNA, I decided it was an excellent summation of the travesty that is the Ramsey case.

Mary Lacy, Boulder Doofus Attorney, stated unequivocably that "the DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s." This is the SAME DNA that Lacey, Lin Wood, Michael Tracey, Lou Smit, and ALL the other Ramsey apologists have staked their intruder case on, and the SAME DNA the Ramsey have touted from the rooftops and on every media show that would have them. Yet the one person who is in charge of the investigation, who BELIEVES the DNA will clear her good friends, the Ramseys, publicly stated:

THE DNA COULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE!!!​

How can you believe something is the key to solving a case WHEN YOU'RE NOT EVEN SURE IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT?!!!

But that's just Lacy, Boulder, and Ramsey supporter, logic for you. And that's why this case is the mess it is, and why it will NEVER be brought to trial. The "killer" left a confession in the form of a ransom note, but the guilty went free, and there will never be anyone to match to partial DNA that has nothing to do with the crime scene in the first place.

I have to quit thinking about the idiocy of it all, or I'll get worked up again. Seriously. Ten years ago, I didn't have high blood pressure. It's all Patsy's fault. She got her "victory," and I got a prescription for Norvasc.

 

Norvasc for you, Diovan for me. The only consolation I have is that I know everyone pays in the end.

 

I don't remember reading anything about DNA related to the cord or handle, Little.

 

Thanks Elle. I had been watching a show about a cold case where a cord had been twisted around the victim's neck. They found skin cells on the cord, which of course had me wondering about it in this case too.

Little

 

The Good Wife

I have just finished reading a book called The Good Wife by Clint Richmond. This book is about a man here in Texas that killed his wife. There was dna found under her fingernails and in a small puddle of bloody water on a kitchen counter top that didn't match the woman murdered or her husband. The dna in both instances was very weak and incomplete. (not a good description but the best I can do at this point) Both sources were allegedly from saliva and male.

The defense tried to claim the woman had jammed her fingers in the assailants mouth - hard to do since she was struck from behind. The prosecution struggled quite a bit with this dna. They tried for a long time to match it up but there was too little to match it too. Also, though the technician who did the original testing swore multiple times that there could be no contamination of the specimen with the methods she used, the prosecution actually put on some expert testimony that there was contamination in a reagent or something that caused this problem.

Fortunately there was other evidence and the jury found this guy guilty. Anyway, it seems like a decent prosecuter could have done the same with the Ramsey case dna.

 

Thank you for this update Texan. So much to learn with this DNA. I'm glad this guy was found guilty from other evidence.

There was a lot of evidence pointing to Patsy Ramsey without the DNA but
the Ramsey $$$ were flowing.

 

Is the initial CBI report (and other reports on the DNA) somewhere on the ACR site?

 

Was Wood right about the second blood spot not having been tested or is this just another example of fact-twisting on his part?
And could it be determined that the alleged foreign male DNA under her fingernails was the same as found in the blood spot(s) of her underwear? TIA for answering these questions.

 

As far as I remember...heh...we don't have the entire "initial" DNA report, just some bits we got from screen captures of the various crocumentaries done by Tracey, who got them from either Smit or Wood, probably Smit and "his" PowerPoint, created with the State's evidence while working for $60K under Hunterf, but eventually given to Smit outright by Hunter and the corrupt DA Office under Smit's outright threat of blackmail, IMO. That's as much as I remember. But that is where Why Nut got his/her quote from, as some of the bits we can see in the aired segments include that quote. Some names also appear, and some are redacted out, but our great sleuths here have deduced some of those redacted names by comparing the spaces and little bits you can see.

 

There was a second spot of blood in JonBenet's undies that hadn't been tested. I think it was said by Chief Beckner that it wasn't tested earlier because the DNA process hadn't advanced enough yet, and to test it would require DESTROYING that DNA sample, which was so MINUTE that it STILL didn't inclued a FULL CELL SAMPLE, only yielding less than 10, which isn't even enough to enter it into the FBI CODIS database permanently. It still has to be run each week from Boulder, by the DA's Office, who has control of the case and all files now.

Since it's not even determined if this is a MIXED sample, nor is if a full set of markers, in reality, nobody can be eliminated by it. However, if the RST wants to argue it DOES eliminate the Ramseys, then it eliminates others who don't match, as well. They ignore that when fingering some of their favorite targets, though.

As for the fingernail markers, it was stated on Schller's last documentary, I believe it was, shown the night Patsy was buried, that the fingernail DNA only has 3 or 4 markers at most, so NO, it can't be MATCHED to the DNA in the undies. Since the undie DNA also is a mixed bag of "ifs" and "incompletes" and "stutter/artifact/contamination", this DNA is useless, totally and definitively. No one can ever "match" such a small sample, and no one can "not" match it if it's mixed, which they don't know. So as has been said about a million times, THIS IS NOT A DNA CASE.

Believe me, if PERV Karr had been placed in Boulder that night, or in the home some OTHER way, or knew some fact of the murder the general public DIDN'T know, not "matching" that DNA would have meant NOTHING, in terms of the DA going after him. Remember the DNA sample they tested in Thailand from him ALSO WAS NOT A MATCH. But Lacy went after him anyway, didn't she? Only when he got here and she realized she couldn't find ONE other piece of evidence to place him at the scene, and his story after years of prompting by Tracey STILL didn't fit the crime, either, did she let him go.

 

A poster on the Crime Library Forum who says he is a biologist wrote it is very unusual that 9 to 10 DNA markers would survive the manufacturing process of the underwear.
For example, he said heat will destroy DNA, and that underwear would be exposed to heat when for example being packaged in the plastic bags.

I know nothing about DNA, but maybe some people here do - is this poster right? Is it unusual for such a number of DNA markers to have been preserved?
Also, does anyone know how many DNA markers the comparison underwear sample had which Dr. Lee tested? TIA for your help.

 

manufacturing

I don't think that poster can state with confidence that packaging the underwear would expose it to such heat. Do you watch modern marvels? Mr. Texan does. So I have absorbed some of how things are manufactured and packaged. I think that the dna could be deposited at different points during the process but in the packaging process there is probably a machine that folds the panties and puts them in the bags. I believe I read that the bags have zippers as opposed to being sealed. In that case there may not be alot of heat involved. I believe I also read that LE believe the dna could have been deposited during the manufacturing/packaging process and I think they must know if there is too much heat involved to allow the dna markers to survive.

 

How could 9-10 DNA markers survive?

Thanks Texan.

The poster said that being put in plastic bags alone would be terribly derimental to the DNA strand, and that biological samples are always placed in sterile paper bags or cardboard boxes that are well ventilated and are always refrigerated. If they are in plastic, the bacteria, fungi, etc. will proliferate and further degrade the DNA. He also said that DNA collected from saliva or mucus will contain amylase which is secreted by the parotid, submax and sublinguinal glands, and that amylase is an enzyme which degrades the DNA chain.

Acording to this poster, even without heat it is impossible to explain that 9-10 DNA markers would survive even more than a couple of days under these conditions in underwear contaminated either by mucus or saliva.

He says he is a biologist who has also done his own testing on this and only had 2 markers survive UNLESS he refrigerated the bag below 33F in which case h was able to get 4 markers to survive.

He also wrote to Bloomingdale's, asking them about the manufacturing process back then, but they wrote back it has changed since 1996, so he didn't get useful info.

He also thinks it is remotely possible that the blood spots were contaminated during the isolation/investigation process - after all the other mishaps which occurred in this investigation, it could not be excluded.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=289828&page=4
(post# 129)

It would interest me very much how many DNA markers Dr. Lee was able to find in the comparison underwear samples which he tested. Does anyone have info on that?

jmo

 

Well, how would this poster explain how the cops collect DNA from a crime scene that is hours old, then, if DNA is so fragile? What he is saying about the underwear's packaging is pure nonsense! The underwear aren't sterilized at any point in the manufacturing process! The packaging isn't heat-sealed around them. The underwear is made, folded, and put in the packages which are then sealed up, but not sterilized. How absurd.

And arguing about the DNA in the first place tells you he is a Ramsey supporter.

 

I am reposting this post #36 of WY's because I think it is a very interesting one.
October 11, 2007, 2:52 pm, Thu Oct 11 14:52:31 CDT 2007 <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Little


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


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>