Lacy officially "clears" Ramseys

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Why_Nut, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    Thanks. I'll email him tomorrow. I won't frighten him to death with a phone call cisywidnaeunnerstaunme :) He'd need to take lessons first:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMnKPnPhhYw
     
  2. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    In case you want to contact that woman with your brilliant questions......

    The Bode Technology Group, Inc.
    10430 Furnace Road
    Suite 107
    Lorton, VA 22079

    Customer Service E-mail: bode.service@bodetech.com
    Toll Free: 866-Bode-4-ID (263-3443)
    Local: 703-646-9740
    Fax: 703-646-9741

    http://www.bodetech.com/
     
  3. Tril

    Tril Member

    Please do it, KK. And please let us know how it turns out. Thanks!
     
  4. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Interesting that Lacy refused to discuss any other DNA testing that may have been done. Test that garrote cord and THEN come and talk to us, Lacy.
     
  5. AMES

    AMES Member

    How much ya wanna bet...the garotte, the paper used to write the RN, the Sharpie pen, JB's bedsheets, JB's blanket that was used to wrap her body with, the Barbie nightgown, and the package of the rest of the size 12 panties that the Rams finally turned over....were NEVER tested for Touch DNA. (That's because Mary Lacy is afraid of uncovering the truth, and its hard to kiss John Ramsey's butt...if the truth ever came out).
     
  6. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    And then , of course, Mary Lacy's DNA would be on his butt....
     
  7. AMES

    AMES Member


    Right...LOL...TOUCH DNA
    I seriously think that she has a thing for lizard lips.
     
  8. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    OMG, that is nauseating.
     
  9. Karen

    Karen Member

    Lizardlips and Haircurtain. The wedding would look like something from that movie Halloweentown.
     
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    They had a "demonstration" on CNN tonight...hahaha, that CNN had the demonstration presented at the ACTUAL LAB with the SAME LAB TECHNICIAN WHO DID THE "tOUCH" TEST, the same technician who was on Nancy Grace last night, "Williamson", I think?

    On the CNN news show tonight, Anderson Cooper 360, without Anderson though, hosted by a guest host, they presented a video of the technician at the BODE LAB, showing how the bottoms would have been contaminated by having the reporter grab them--or a pair of shorts as stand-in, Williamson saying she couldn't show the "ACTUAL" BOTTOMS.

    Then she showed how she "scraped" fuzz from the cloth with something like an exacto knife. Then she showed some kind of tank type of "processor" which...get ready for it...ELIMINATES IRRELEVANT DNA...?

    What? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

    Takes from two hours to two days.

    Then into this demonstration the narrator slipped in something strange: he said that sometimes the test wasn't...useful?...because the "amount" of DNA isn't large enough and GIVES A FALSE POSITIVE? So...what does THAT mean? How much is "enough"? How much did they "scrape" from JonBenet's bottoms? How much "irrelevant" DNA did they "eliminate"? And WHOSE DNA WAS THAT? HOW DO THEY KNOW WHICH DNA IS IRRELEVANT?

    And then the reporter smacked his hand on a HARD SURFACE on a table, as the voice over said "touch DNA" on HARD SURFACES can be used blahblahblah. So...back to the CORD AND PAINTBRUSH...DID THEY DO THAT?

    I'll try to hear the rerun if they show it again. I wasn't expecting this and have no recording method right now, so could only watch and hope to remember as much as possible.

    But it just left me with some interesting questions: WHY IS THIS LAB ON TV SHOWING THE TECHNIQUES THEY USED IN THIS TEST? I mean, is this the NEW INVESTIGATIVE PROTOCOL now? Can we expect ALL EVIDENCE from MURDER CASES to be presented to us BY THE DA IN AN UNSOLVED, UNPROSECUTED CASE, ON TV...?

    It's so clear that Lacy simply wanted to give her precious Ramseys AS MUCH OF A DEFENSE AS A GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEY POSSIBLY COULD SPIN.

    Too bad LACY IS THE DA.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I listened to Ollie on NGrace last night in rerun and read the transcript here at FFJ. Let me get the Ollie quote, because now I'm thinking Ollie was "hestitating" in delivering his "paintbrush" DNA statement for another reason. I missed one word the first time--"insertion", but now it not only makes sense, HE MAYBE ONTO SOMETHING...and MAYBE HE KNOWS IT...but it's NOT WHAT HE WANTS IT TO BE:

    I never thought about this. That "foreign" DNA came from the paintbrush possibly? Think about it. Patsy took paint classes. She went into classrooms where she handled easels, paints, chairs or stools to sit on, doorknobs, maybe shared some paint, handled canvasses, bottles of turpentine, palettes, etc. How many ways could she have gotten some DNA on her paintbrush? How easily would linseed oil or turpentine degrade DNA? Remember, PATSY said that JonBenet painted with her, as well, didn't she?

    Since NO ONE seems to be able to say WHETHER ANY OF THIS DNA IS FROM SALIVA, MUCOUS, SKIN, OR WHATEVER--only eliminating SPERMATOZOA, I think Ollie might be on to something. Maybe the source can be found. Has the Scream Team of Lacy/Smit/Tracey ever bothered to investigate THOSE ART CLASS MEMBERS/TEACHERS? Have they tested people who were in the same classs as Patsy in painting? No? Why wouldn't they? Ollie has obviously been thinking about this. Afraid they'll upset someone in the FAT CAT community, coming in and asking questions, looking for a CHILD KILLER among Patsy's ART COMMUNITY?

    Or maybe they're afraid they WILL find the DNA source...with an EXCELLENT alibi, or at least AN INNOCENT REASON HOW THAT DNA GOT WHERE IT DID: WHEN SOMEONE IN THE HOME INSERTED THE PAINTBRUSH TO COVER UP THE PERVIOUS MOLESTATION?

    Well, no matter. Lacy isn't looking for the killer. She's only looking to clear the Ramseys, and THAT she can never actually do without convicting that "DNA" killer.
     
  12. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Let us travel around the highways and byways of the internet and see what we can find. Oh, lookie here. It is the National District Attorneys Association. Oh, and they have an opinion about the use of touch DNA in criminal cases. Tell us, NDAA, what would your perspective on this be?

    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/silent_witness_volume_10_number_3_2006.html

    <i>Limitations and Challenges

    Despite the fact LCN processing can yield potential investigative information there are many caveats associated with it including:

    * Amplification: The process for obtaining LCN DNA requires an analyst increase PCR-amplification from 28 to 34 cycles. Traditionally, DNA processing technology has been thought to work most efficiently when amplification is limited to 28-30 cycles. In some instances fingerprints have been analyzed at 28-40 cycles and rootless hair shafts at 35-43 cycles.

    * Threshold: Since results fall below the normal PCR interpretation threshold, at this time, there is no standard stochastic threshold accepted between laboratories to use in the evaluation of the LCN processing results.

    <b>* Contamination: A common consequence of increased PCR-amplification is that analysts see background DNA contamination resulting from DNA left by an amalgamation of the various individuals who handled the object and not exclusively from those individuals involved with the criminal act under investigated.</b>

    * Alleles drop-out: Allele drop-out may occur if one allele of a heterozygote locus is preferentially amplified in the increased PCR-amplification process.

    * Allele drop-in: Additionally, LCN typing is susceptible to allele drop-in (sometimes called stutter false alleles) or the appearance of artificial STR profiles. Typically allele drop-in is not reproducible and thus by repeating the process multiple times without obtaining identical results, the analyst can identify the problem as allele drop-in.

    <b>* DNA Mixture: The problems with LCN DNA typing are exacerbated when the evidence is a mixed same-gender sample as opposed to a mixture of male and female DNA. An analyst may have difficulty in determining whether a true mixture exists in the evidence sample and separate out its contributors.</b>

    * Artifacts: Other caveats associated with LCN typing include potential bleed through, instrument spikes, increased potential for PCR artifacts and stutter. </i>
     
  13. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    And how about the respected science journal Nature? What have they had to say about the subject of "touch" DNA, also known as low-copy-number DNA?

    LCN DNA: proof beyond reasonable doubt?

    ...

    <i>A method for profiling LCN DNA — often referred to as 'trace DNA' or 'touch DNA' — was developed in 1997 to provide a DNA profile from forensic samples that are so small (<100 pg) they could have been left by a mere touch. This is achieved by increasing the number of PCR cycles from 28 to 34.

    From the outset, difficulties with the LCN DNA technique were reported, including concerns about the increased risks of contamination and transference1, about allelic drop-out and drop-in as well as artefacts. Such phenomena increase the chance of false positives: adventitious matches with innocent individuals. These limitations, and the time-consuming nature and costliness of the process, mean that few jurisdictions have followed the United Kingdom in using the technique. In the United States, it is used exclusively as a last resort to narrow a large pool of suspects, and can only be used as intelligence — that is, information to assist an investigation — rather than evidence at trial. This is partly because LCN DNA profiling has not been standardized, so different laboratories could produce differing results.</i>
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You know, I just looked up "spermatozoa", which is the word the LAB TECHNICIAN used in her SPECIFIC detail about what the "underwear DNA" was NOT, and I may have missed something about this all these years.

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Spermatozoa

    So the reason they keep saying they can't IDENTIFY the DNA source but it's NOT SPERMATOZOA is because there are no ACTUAL SPERM parts in the sample...right?

    I was wondering how they could not know what it IS, but say it's NOT sperm. Is this the gist of it?

    So...really, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ANY OF THESE CELLS ARE? And this is why they say it "could" be saliva or mucous, etc.? Or "probably" skin...but not DEFINITELY?

    So...I asked this but maybe I missed the answer...A DNA PROFILE DOES NOT REVEAL ITS SOURCE FROM THE BODY?

    Howzat? They say they can tell gender, even race with certain tests...but NOT whether it came from skin, mucous, saliva? How about tears?

    And one more thing: if this "touch DNA" was deposited by the killer when he/she had JonBenet's pants down to insert that paintbrush, along with PULLING DOWN AND UP THE UNDERWEAR, why wouldn't they find "touch DNA" on the underwear, as well? Have they tested that? If they have, WHOSE DNA WAS "ELIMINATED" BY THE MACHINE as irrelevant?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2008
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Gosh, thanks so much, Why Nut. You da bomb!

    So...again...the RST has managed to find some VOODOO science to use as propaganda...and the DA did the deed herself.

    I listened to the video "demonstration" on CNN again and got some things more clearly this time that were said :

    Brian Todd was the reporter who went to the lab at Bode Technology. Angela Williamson is the lab technician who worked the "touch" DNA on JB's bottoms and who showed "how it works". She scraped the "demonstration shorts" which Todd had "grabbed", working in a large area marked with a SHARPIE-type marker on the clothing. The ball of "fuzz" she collected was rather large itself, and that was put into a CENTRIFUGE to separate fibers, dirt, etc., from the DNA cells, and THAT takes two hours to two days.

    Then the other processing takes place, where DNA is "ELIMINATED" from the sample being...what? "Looked for"? I'm not sure how that worked.

    The DNA profile from JonBenet's pants had an "X Y chromosome", said Williamson, so it's male.

    Then came the voice over with the caveat: "...minute amounts of 'skin cell' available can give a false positive...."

    So...Williamson said on Nancy Grace last night that this was "probably" a skin cell. Again I ask, HOW CAN SHE NOT KNOW? Seems they can identify blood and SPERMATOZOA, but not skin, saliva, mucous, or tears?

    Which brings me to my final question tonight: the "hostess" on "Anderson Cooper 360" said that there is now a "COMPLETE DNA PROFILE". I have missed that DIRECT QUOTE from anyone in this case, but I haven't been able to read everything or hear everything. Does anyone here have a source for that?

    [Sorry, had to edit this morning as I was working on this late last night and typos and bad spelling/grammar will happen. :cry: ]
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2008
  16. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Ramsey tips resurge

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/ramsey-tips-resurge/

    When news breaks in the unsolved JonBenet Ramsey case and Boulder is thrust back into the national spotlight, authorities are flooded with tips.

    Since Wednesday’s exoneration of John and Patsy Ramsey in the 1996 slaying of their daughter, Boulder police dispatchers have had their hands full with Ramsey-related queries, comments and “suggestions.â€

    The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office has set up a hot line to deal with the tipsters.

    “Anytime there’s coverage about the case, we tend to see a little flurry of calls from people who think they know who did it,†said Boulder police spokeswoman Sarah Huntley.

    Most of the calls that have come into the police dispatch center since District Attorney Mary Lacy exonerated and apologized to JonBenet’s family have been questions or suggestions as opposed to solid leads, Huntley said.

    “People are saying, ‘Did you think of so and so?’ or ‘Have you tried this person?’†she said. “There are people who want to try to help by making suggestions.â€

    Huntley said the police department is open to the calls “because you never know when they will yield results.â€

    The voice message on the district attorney’s Ramsey tip hot line urges callers to submit tips in writing to a post office box address. People who choose to leave a message are asked to leave their full name and phone number.

    To leave JonBenet tips:
    Hot line: 303-441-1636

    Mail: Boulder County District Attorney’s Office

    Attn: Investigations Unit

    P.O. Box 471

    Boulder, CO 80306

    Web: www.BoulderDA.org
     
  17. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Rmn 07/11/08

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/10/johnson-of-mice-and-guns-and-jonbenet/

    Of JonBenet Ramsey, DNA, genetic material, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy and apologies, I have one simple thought.

    Actually, a couple of them: John Mark Karr and the ransom note. Of Karr, well, that whole business speaks for itself.

    Of the ransom note, I've never once covered a story or heard of one where an intruder actually sat down to write one while the folks in the house he broke into slept upstairs, who didn't like his or her first extortion attempt and crumpled it up, started over, rambled, yet knew the precise amount the sleeping man of the house earned in a bonus that year.

    Not only that, but an intruder who actually left the note to be found while going about duct-taping, perhaps molesting, garroting and leaving for dead in the basement the one person who could land him or her the bonus that he or she so painstakingly tried to secure with a time-consuming note.

    Such a leisurely bold knucklehead, you figure, would and should have been caught long ago.

    No, the apology Mary Lacy should have written was for her office and the Boulder Police Department's fouling up the investigation into that little girl's murder from the get-go and beyond.
     
  18. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I so agree!
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Could someone please direct me to the FFJ lecture room on TOUCH DNA? I hear there are a few professors giving lectures today. :) TIA for all the printed matter.
     
  20. heymom

    heymom Member

    This whole thing about the "touch DNA" is truly a case of taking a crumb and making a cake from it. And then, you give the media that crumb and you will have not only the cake, but a whole catered meal, from the first course through dessert! Case solved, we have a whole DNA profile! WTF???
     
  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