Rogue DNA

Heymom, sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my post. The poster mentioned sterile containers only in reference to DNA samples collected at a crime scene, not in connection with the underwear manufacturing process.
And I don't have the impression this is a Ramsey supporter. On the contrary, he said it is only these DNA 9-10 markers which keep bugging him and prevent him from being 100 per cent RDI.
I myself know nothing about DNA, which is why it is very difficult for me to assess what other posters write about it. All I can do is ask on other forums to get a 'second opinion', so to speak.

Any info about Dr. Lee's experiment with the comparison underwear samples would be much appreciated. I have recently bought his book "Cracking More Cases", but he doesn't mention it there.

jmo

 

I just remember Dr. Henry Lee saying on TV that it would not be a DNA case
rashomon. I don't have his book. I am surprised he hasn't given more information on his thoughts.

 

OK, I understand. I think some people have brains that are a little too large...They overthink tiny little points that really aren't relevant, but the detail gets them hyper-focused.

You know, IF there had been anything in the DNA that would prove the Ramseys DID NOT do it, they would have been in the courtroom with their highly-paid lawyers - they would have allowed the case to go forward instead of refusing to talk. The fact that there was NOTHING forthcoming from the Ramseys or their lawyers tells me that they knew the DNA would never prove their innocence. And it MIGHT end up proving someone's involvement, so they didn't go anywhere close.

 

Rashoman

In a previous post on this thread I mentioned a book by Clint Richmond called The Good Wife. You might be interested in reading it. It is about a case that had dna contamination during the lab processing. If you would like I would send it to you.

 

I don't know if this is what you are looking for rashomon but this is from Dr. Lee's book:

 

Sorry rashomon. I didn't read your post carefully enough. You already have that information.

Little

 

I asked him this question.
He replied that there are generally about 4 markers which are fairly "hardy" (that is, less sensitive to degradation than the others) and dna does not need to be complete in order to be used at trial.

For example, the first blood spot with the 2- 4 markers could be 'matched' to a person. BUT they could only say that (for ex) there is a 1 in 30 million chance that the DNA belongs to someone else....whereas if they had 14 markers they could say (for ex) that the probability of THAT sample belonging to someone else in one is 50 billion (depending on the alleles and their frequencies in certain populations).

So in other words, DNA can be degraded and still be used to identify a perp. He also mentioned one specific case where a killer was matched to the scene with only one surviving marker. But in that case they had a lot of corroborating evidence.

He also said that DNA from blood is much less likely to contain bacteria and fungi and can usually last at room temp for quite a while (but humidity will degrade it rapidly) which is why it should not be stored in plastic.

DNA in bone marrow or the roots of teeth is highly protected and can last for a very long time (they have used this in many cases to identify remains).

But DNA from saliva, skin cells, mucous, semen etc has to be properly stored within a few days or it will rapidly degrade.

Again, I'm merely stating what this poster said. I wish I had paid more attention in biology class when DNA was being discussed - I know so little about the subject that I don't even know how to start a sensible Google search on it.

WATCHING YOU wrote:

Could it be that the alleged 9-10 surviving DNA markers are just another example of the Ramsey Spin Team's fact-twisting?

 

Thank you so much, Texan. I just found a very good bargain offer of this book at Amazon and have added it to my list. Sounds like a very interesting case which may also shed some light on the controversially discussed DNA issue in the JBR case.

When going through Steve Thomas' book today, I found this (p. 305, hardcover ed., bolding mine):