The rising tide of common sense?

Dna

I'm new here. I've been reading at Crime and Justice for years and found a link to here a few days ago.

I've believed the Ramseys to be involved since reading all the links and documents. One of my question is that I've read a few places that the DNA in the underwear is that of a "white male". Is this true? I don't know anything about DNA but I do know they didn't find a complete DNA profile. Can they be sure it's white male with only a partial DNA profile?

I've read so much on this subject in the last few days I'm getting dizzy.

 

Welcome, rain.
What I understand is that there are limits to what can be concluded from what they have.
I believe Dr Henry Lee said that the DNA on the panties may have come from a cough or sneeze during the manufacturing process. He obtained another package of undies and tested them and found a similar result. Someone correct me if that's wrong.

And the DNA is not sufficient to match but could exclude, or be inconclusive.

Right, guys?

 

The short answer to your question is, no, they cannot tell race from DNA. Scientific advances in DNA profiling in the past few years have resulted in at least one private lab being able to qualify, but not positively, where in the world a certain subject may have come from. IOW, they might be able to identify someone as coming from Africa or Europe.

The problem with DNA identification involving race is that race is more a social issue than it is a scientific issue. We identify black people as African American, or "blacks," but consider that we also classify half Caucasian/half African American (that "half" being arbitrary in itself) as "black" too. Consider that we are a mixture of breeds, for lack of a better word. I am part Irish, part English, part Indian, part who knows? What race am I? Caucasian, because my skin is "white." How can science determine my race from DNA when I have so many different ancestors originating from so many different countries?

Consider a person who is of mixed heritage (part black, part white, part whoknows?) who mates and produces offspring with a person of Mexican descent. What race are the offspring of this couple? Mexican? Black? White? How can DNA possibly determine the race of this offspring?

Therein lies the problem with determining an individual's race from DNA. Maybe someday they will be able to come up with a better means of identification than "race," because the mixing of the "races" has forever confounded that effort.

 

Handwriting

Thank you, Watching You, for answering my question so quickly.

When I saw the handwriting expert claim on Nancy Grace or Larry King or one of those shows that they were 99% convinced Karr wrote the ransom note I was shocked. I'm no expert on handwriting but I don't see very many similarities between the year book and the ransom note.

 

Welcome to FFJ, Rain! I posted the following on another thread, but in case you missed it ... and since the subject of the "analyst" who claimed he was 99% convinced Karr wrote the Ransom Note keeps being brought up by people who have seen his song-and-dance in the media ... I've reposted it here.

The two JMK comparisons I've done are entitled Comparison of Karr's 1982 yearbook handwriting with 1996 Ramsey "ransom note" and they are posted as a sticky at the top of this forum page. Here's the link:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...read.php?t=7291

That being said, any competent and qualified handwriting analyst knows it is difficult to compare handwriting that has a major span of time existing between the two exemplars. Karr's yearbook inscription was made in 1982 when he was 17, and the Ransom Note was written in December 1996 for a total of 14 years between the two samples. In order to give a truly accurate comparison of Karr's handwriting with the Ransom Note, we would need samples of his handwriting from the time of December 1996, NOT 1982.

In addition, comparison from only one exemplar is not standard procedure. A qualified analyst needs MANY samples of a person's handwriting in order to be able to give an opinion as to authorship of a given piece of writing. Obviously, the more exemplars you have, the more accurate the analysis.

I am STUNNED that anyone calling themselves a certified handwriting analyst would go on national TV and declare Karr the Ransom Note writer by using only ONE example of his handwriting, and that one sample has a 14-year gap between its date and that of the Ransom Note! That is not only unprofessional, it is the height of stupidity!

I can say with complete confidence that the discredited analyst, Baggett, who gave his 99.9% assurance that Karr was the Ransom Note writer based on Karr's yearbook inscription, is not only wrong, but an idiot. Anyone who would stake their reputation to one exemplar is nothing more than a poseur and someone promoting themselves for media, and public, attention. Baggett (and his co-hort, Lehew) saw an opportunity to advertise their online "Handwriting University," and they capitalized on it.

As an aside ... apparently, the reason Baggett and Lehew were able to make all the media rounds flogging their erroneous conclusions is because, once again, all of the new shows are lazy and not doing their homework. I read a report this last week about how the reporters used Google in an effort to find handwriting experts when Karr's yearbook inscription first came out ... and "Handwriting University" was one of the Google listings. (In addition, Baggett had already seen the money potential of using Karr's yearbook sample to lure interested readers to his "Handwriting University" and had already posted a copy of it to his web site the day it became available.) Not knowing anything about the field of handwriting or graphology, the reporters didn't bother to check Baggett's credentials (which were subsequently discredited), and so they grabbed Baggett (and Lehew) for their news shows immediately.

Consequently, the truth about Karr's handwriting and the Ransom Note was buried in an avalanche of shoddy reporting and unqualified experts.

 

Cherokee...

Thanks for bringing us this information on how these handwriting "experts" came to be on national tv interviews, and how they are adding to the growing pile of manure being shoveled upon the public in the media's attempt to solve the Ramsey murder by convicting Karr on the morning news and on the evening talking head shows.

And welcome to FFJ, Rain88 and laurapitrie! Good to see you posting....

Voyager

 

Hey, all!!
Got an email in reply from Corky Siemaszko!!

Thanks for your note. I’ll give sites you suggested a gander. But I’m puzzled why you’d assume I think Karr’s claims hold water. I think the list of evidence we published on Sunday pretty much refutes just about everything he has claimed. I think that barring a DNA match, the accusing finger continues to point in the direction of JonBenet’s parents.

Anyway, thanks for writing. And thanks for reading The Daily News.