DNA Questions, "Touch DNA" & "Familial DNA"

Open the files!!!!!!!

All I can keep picturing is John coming up the basement stairs with JonBenet's body......holding her by her tiny little waist with his man-size hands........with such prescision that the tiny spec of DNA Dust on the waistband of her little longjohns went undisturbed for over a decade.....and thinking "Yeah, Righhhhhht......." all over again.

 

I posted this at topix, but I'm going to put it here because the RST never stops spreading their disinformation, so we have to keep debunking it:

 

Maybe we are thinking backasswards on this undies - long johns DNA situation. RST would have us believe the killer touched both items. Logic says the long johns were pulled up over the undies, hence the transfer could have happened at that time.

What if? What if JonBenét was redressed in the basement and both garments were laying on the blanket but the killer touched the basement floor or the garments touched the basement floor and the transfer was made at that point? How many workmen wandered through that basement? Have all workmen have given DNA samples? How many people were in that basement when the house belonged to prior owners? Have the prior home owners and their friends given DNA samples? The sample is degraded. To me it is more logical as degraded as that sample is that it came from an older deposit or it was "washed."

...and here is a thought. John's golf bag was sitting in the basement. Let's face it men spit (and to be honest so do some women these days.) Perhaps he picked up some spittle on his shoes or the golf bag and deposited it on the basement floor.

That basement had so many reasons to have degraded DNA samples in it that it's impossible to believe anyone will ever be eliminated in this case.


As Henry Lee said, "this is not a DNA case."

 

Bumping this up for Punisher. He asked....

 

That I did. I have been thinking about it.

 

Poster Anti-K is one of those IDIs who frequently try to bluff their way through by presenting false info as evidentiary fact.
For example, a few days ago, he wrote at Topix:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T18H0542TJHI72AEM/p8

But weren't there only nine or ten markers found?

And how can touch DNA yield a "full profile" when the original DNA in the underpants couldn't? Correct me if I have got anything wrong here.

Is Anti-K bluffing again? TIA for your help in clearing this up.

 

JR Off the top of my head, the Hoffman-Pugh family,Linda, her husband, her daughter and her boyfriend removed quite a number of Christmas trees from this wine cellar/windowless room and took them upstairs and placed them around the house where Patsy wanted them.

The famous hair which cropped up could have come from either one of these two males while they were lifting the trees from that room. I wonder if they ever checked the DNA of these two men(?). DNA from this whole group working in this wine cellar has to be there.

I disposed of quite a few JonBenét books because I thought I was finished posting about it, but like everyone else here, we keep coming back like a song. If I come across this information, I will post it. Hopefully someone else will confirm this for me.

 

I'm confused about the "infamous hair" you mention. As far as I recall, there were two hairs found. Both have been "solved". One on the white blanket, found to be an ancillary (forearm hair) belonging to Patsy Ramsey and one found in the suitcase under the window that was found to belong to JonBenet. But I may have missed something.

 

Transcript by Candy of C. Crier's interview with Dr. Lee in 2004:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TEEG0PIRVFCCUDIS2/p6
(#106 post)

With all the recent ballyhoo about the touch DNA, IDIs like to forget what Dr. Lee has pointed out: foreign DNA on factory-made garments is a frequent finding.

So that's how they could obtain the nine markers? By multiplying the DNA millions of times?
What is STI?

 

Well, right off the bat he is in error about the size of the panties. They have been mentioned hundreds of times, and always identified as GIRL's panties, size 12. And that size in girl's undies is NOT equivalent to a ladies size 7. Maybe a Ladies Small or size 5. There is BIG difference between ladies 5 and 7, though to look at them out of the package you might not think it.

 

Dr. Lee wrongly calling the girl's Bloomies a "size 7 adult" has caused a lot of confusion on the JBR discussion forums.

 

Fingerprints from clothing?

New research:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7771696.stm

Not sure the article is entirely technically accurate but what I do know is that Abertay University has had a lot of research grant money thrown at it and has done some good stuff in the last 2/3 years.

 

Very interesting info, which could move the JBR case forward. .
In view of such new technologies, the new DA absolutely should have the ligatures tested.
For the Ramseys denied the cord came from their home.

 

Dr. Lee is the only person I have ever seen say the Bloomies were adult size 7. It's in his book where he discusses this case, as well. We have many sources for the Bloomies being children's size 12-14, including the Atlanta transcripts of the BDA contingent discussing this with Patsy. Patsy never once says Oh, those were adult and not children's. PATSY HERSELF SAYS SHE BOUGHT THEM FOR HER NIECE--A CHILD.

So how anyone can argue that's not true, with so many solid sources to corroborate THE BLOOMIES WERE CHILDREN'S SIZE 12-14, I don't know. I think Dr. Lee just got it in his head they were way too big and maybe someone once said to him they were as large as an adult size 7, and that stuck in his mind. I don't know that is what confused him, just an example, but that's how things can get confused some times.

 

And that's one of the major reasons why you'll never see that ligature tested. if it had R DNA on it, particularly on the knot, that'd point a finger at the Rs. But after all, JR already covered his a$$ on that one- he claimed to have attempted to untie the ligatures from her wrists. We all know that didn't happen because they were never tied tightly on her wrists. But he does say he touched the cord. Even if R DNA was found on the knot by the back of her neck (where PR's jacket fibers were also found) they'd still use the excuse that JR touched the cord when he "untied" it. Now, PR never claimed to have touched the cord, so if her DNA was found, that'd implicate her anyway. Unless she's use the same old excuse of throwing herself on the body. JBR was already covered up with the blanket and sweatshirt when PR was brought in to see her, but I am sure her lawyers would still say that was how her DNA got on the cord.
Boy, how different this case would have been if JR had not been allowed to roam the house and "find" her, and bring her upstairs.
I'd love to know exactly what FW saw JR do when he followed him into the wineceller that day. Did he see him untie the cords? Remove the tape from her mouth? Remove it from her legs? JR said her legs were tied with tape. Not much is mentioned about that part. But because of rigor mortis, her legs would still have been close together in that bound position even if they had been unbound. Just as the the 17 inch spread between her wrists indicates that they were not bound together or even bound at all until after rigor mortis set in. And because of livor mortis, there'd have been marks from whatever bound them around her ankles or wherever the legs were bound. The autopsy never mentions marks on her flesh from tape or cord around either her wrists or legs. So to me, that means neither her legs or wrists were bound.

 

As we just witnessed with OJ.....sometimes Justice is best served cold, so we should never lose hope! All we can do is start praying for someone with a BRAIN, besides us, to become involved with this case......

 

True, Rat. Things like this work on their own cosmic time schedule, and no doubt one day, whether we know about it or not, karma will spin out justice.

 

At another forum, we are currently having a discussion about the arm hair which was sourced to Patsy.

Mame thinks one can't do Mitochondrial DNA testing on an ancillary hair. Is this correct? I always thought it can be done, but know too little about DNA - TIA for helping me answer this question.

 

Yes you can. mtDNA testing can be done more universally than nuclear DNA but it can't identifiy a person as accurately as nuclear DNA. mtDNA can be done on hairs which no longer have a root bulb, teeth and bone. It's often used in archaeology. mtDNA can identify a maternal relationship but not gender. For instance, my son and two daughters, my brother, sister and myself all have the same mtDNA as my mother and her siblings and her mother etc. Tests would show that a hair came from one of us but not necessarily which one of us. If the hair had a root bulb, then nuclear DNA testing would be able to determine which one of us the hair beloonged to.

 

Too late to edit, but I should have added that Mame is wrong about this. (Now, there's a surprise )