The DNA Question

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Ginja, Aug 19, 2006.

  1. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    The autopsy report states that the foreign DNA was comingled with JonBenet's blood. What that says to me (and believe me, I'm no medical expert, not even a novice!), but to me that means that the foreign DNA wasn't in the panties already and JonBenet's blood seeped on top of it (e.g., a plant worker sneezed into the panties).

    So how does this foreign DNA comingle with JonBenet's blood?

    Inside her. The DNA is introduced inside JB, mixes with her blood, and seeps back out of her onto her panties.

    How does this DNA get inside JB? Well first, I don't think it's a "clean transfer"...that is, from person to person. I would think that if that was the case, then the sample would have been just as "clean". That is, not so degraded -- certainly more than 10 markers or so that could identify it.

    I'm thinking more along the lines that the sample was already degraded before it entered JB. And the source and/or vehicle for this degraded DNA?

    The paintstick.

    Remember, the paintstick was the source for the birefringent material found in her vaginal mucosa. And of course, it was also the source for the splinter found within the vaginal cavity.

    Patsy wasn't the only person who handled her painstick. Maybe someone sneezed while varnishing the paintbrush! Is that possible? Like I said, I'm no expert.

    But it seems plausible to me that when the paintstick was inserted, all kinds of "trash" was on that stick and who knows what else besides splinters and varnish/paint got deposited. That insertion caused some abrasion and bleeding and some of the deposited "trash" was washed back out in the seeping blood and redeposited in JB's panties.

    Just a thought.
  2. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Good logic, Ginj, it could well be transfer DNA of some sort.

    My take on this "comingled" issue is that the foreign DNA was already on the outside of the panties when JB's blood got deposited on/over it. Any liquid on dried DNA matter will soften it enough to mix, or comingle, with the liquid which, in this case, could have been JB's fresh blood. By the time the body got to the autopsy table, some considerable time had elapsed sufficient to dry the entire deposit.

    But Henry Lee says it isn't a viable sample to ever be matched to anyone so I guess it's really a moot point how it got there, where it came from, etc. It's kind of like the scuff mark on the wall...while Smit et al wants everyone to believe it was made by the intruder on that night, there's no way to date or time it, no way to match it to anyone, so it isn't useable by anyone in this case.
  3. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    I think that I agree somewhat with Ginja's idea that the blood was mingled with the foreign DNA at some point BEFORE being deposited on the panties.

    Why? Cuz what are the odds that the blood would land on the ONLY part of the panties where there was a speck of human, degraded, foreign DNA on the panties.

    I suspect that the foreign DNA was only discovered becuz the blood spot was tested, and the foreign DNA was found commingled with it. One would HOPE that after finding the foreign DNA, the rest of the panties would have been gone over with a fine toothed come to try to find a better sample of the foreign DNA. Either that wasn't done, or there was only the one speck where the blood dropped ... OR the two DNA samples were commingled elsewhere.

    How and where that ocurred is open for debate. There are MANY possibilities, of which, the paintbrush would be one.

    But the simple fact that the sample of foreign DNA was sooOOoo degraded strongly suggests that it is NOT related to the person who sexually abused and murdered JonBenet. It's a red herring ... and it MUST BE DISCREDITED at EVERY OPPORTUNITY!

  4. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    DejaNu ... You MUST read ACR's posts ... and watch the video's at the site she linked to at the
    The Check Stub and the Layout of the House
    thread. This is MUST SEE stuff!

    I ... I have to admit ... now that I know more, this guy IS dangerous ... and probably a pedophile. But his story doesn't jive with the facts.

  5. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    panty dna

    I think it is possible the comingle did happen on the panties because the foreign dna appears to be from something like a sneeze. A sneeze would spray some material like sliva and perhaps hit the panties in more than one spot. The process of degrading may have made the other miniscule spots show no dna and maybe this one spot was the largest so still had some recognizable dna. Yes, it would be a coincidence that the blood spot ended up over degraded dna spot but the crotch of the panties probably weren't really big and I believe the blood spot was reported to be one half inch in diameter which could narrow the odds of that happening.
  6. Ribaldone

    Ribaldone FFJ Senior Member

    Dr. Lee and Bob Grant once again attempt to clear up misperceptions about the DNA in an AP story today. My guess is the braindead media will disregard this statement.

    'Legal experts have said DNA evidence will likely be key: DNA was found beneath JonBenet's fingernails and inside her underwear. But others who worked on the case warned that DNA evidence alone will not be enough to convict Karr.

    'It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent," a forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, said Saturday, adding that investigators only have a partial profile to work with.

    "There was different DNA and mixture DNA that was hard to develop a profile from," said Bob Grant, a former prosecutor from neighboring Adams County who was an advisor in the case.

    Can't get much clearer than that! :skank:
  7. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Could you very well informed posters please help me with this:
    A poster on another forum wrote:
    Is this true? Were there two different bloodspots from JB with the same foreign DNA in them? Where can I look up info on the DNA issue? Thanks in advance for your replies!
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Nobody has ever said that before that I've seen. If I missed it, I missed it. But that's news to me.

    Just like the claims that the fingernail DNA matches the underpant DNA. I haven't ever seen any official statement that this is true. Just RST spin. I've seen Wood insinuate it's true. But no evidence, just speculation.
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Do not believe the crap the RST has spread about the fingernail DNA matching the panty DNA. There were only 2-3 viable markers in the fingernail DNA, meaning it was old and degraded. It is possible those 2-3 markers "matched" 2 or 3 markers in the panty DNA. THAT IS NOT A %$(*&@$% DNA MATCH, DAMMITALLTOHELL, and I'm getting real tired of refuting this RST BS over and over.

    CODIS requirements for a DNA match are 13 viable markers. The panty DNA allegedly has 9 good markers and 1 not so good markers. That does not meet the requirements for identification purposes according to FBI guidelines. But the RST apparently thinks those guidelines apply to everyone else but them.

    Please don't listen to the talking heads who don't know what they are talking about. They repeat the tired old RST spin, and it's just sickening to watch them spread this kind of misinformation.
  10. Ginja

    Ginja Member


    The knowledge of this foreign DNA has been a fact in this case since it was discovered during analysis of the panties. But because that's all there was of it, miniscule at best, the BPD (you know, the keystone kops who botched the evidence in this investigation -- right) determined it had no relevance to the crime. Wecht referred to it, and still does, as a contaminant.

    But when the Ramseys hired Lin Wood, the first thing he jumped on was that DNA and with help from Lou Smit, went all over the air screaming how they had proof of the killer! Since then, Wood has controlled the direction of this investigation. Lacy's gone along with this because she's believed in the intruder theory since Day 1.

    WE know the dna is a contaminant, the keystone kops know it's a contaminant, and forensic experts know it's a contaminant -- but as far as the DA's concerned, it's evidence the killer left behind.

    And with Wood threatening to sue anybody who would dare say otherwise, there's been no chance in hell of changing this thinking. That's pretty well obviated by the fact that they're looking to see (hoping is probably more like it) if Karr's dna matches! Forget that his ex-wife's given him an alibi -- or that newspeople are joking about this being Karr's first visit to Boulder - ever! - the BDA will continue to search for someone who's dna matches.

    Further, everyone KNOWS the crime scene was STAGED. So WHY is this BDA's office insistent on following the clues of a staged crime scene! For example, they believe this crime was committed by a pedophile. Where's the evidence of that? Do you think a stalking pedophile would not rape his victim? Even if his kidnapping went awry? Hell, there was just a case of a neighbor kidnapping a little girl and she died during the kidnap attempt. Yet the bastard still raped her after she was dead! JBR's body showed no signs of rape nor was there any semen left anywhere. This stalker -- with all the trouble he went through to commit this crime and then stage the crimescene -- was satisfied with simply inserting a painstick into her?

    Since Day 1, the BDA has consistently and aggressively attacked the BPD for being so myopic as to focus only on the family. The BPD has never cleared the family because of the evidence. So the BDA takes the case away from them and does exactly what they accused the BPD of doing -- botching the investigation and relying on non-existent evidence of a staged crimescene.

    Today on the news I heard that because Patsy's dead, she's out of the picture, i.e., out of consideration! Ha! That didn't stop them from going after that nut Helgoth!

    The BDA's investigation is tragic. More tragic is the idiocy of the media that's going along with the BDA's antics.

    FWIW, I checked with a couple of medical people who confirmed my theory that it's possible for that dna to have been on the painstick and transferred during the insertion. IOW, it has no relevance to the crime.

    And yet this is the BDA's smoking gun.
  11. Tril

    Tril Member

    Hi everyone

    This is my 2nd FFJ post. I hope it's okay to jump right in. Since I pretty much stepped away from the case a couple years ago, I think I may have grown a little fuzzy on the facts, so please correct me when I'm wrong.

    Concerning the "foreign" DNA, I seem to recall that according to molecular biologist Melissa Weber of CellMark Laboratories, the lab that did the DNA analysis, the so-called "foreign" DNA found on JonBenet's underpants (and under her fingernails) was degraded and had to be amplified through PCR amplification to come up with enough markers, and even then they only got nine.

    During PCR amplification, damaged or old, degraded, imperfect DNA is amplified along with the good, and can give the false impression that another person's DNA is present, when it actually isn't. The two extra markers found in the "foreign" DNA sample could be merely stutter (also called shadow bands), a common problem occuring in PCR amplification, which often results in a false positive. I think she also said that if there WERE two sources of DNA and they were mixed together, then no one could be excluded. were John and Burke excluded?

    My bet is that when Karr's DNA doesn't match the sample, the meme we'll hear from everyone in the R camp is "Well, then, the DNA found on the body wasn't the intruder's after all. Karr still did it."

    Karr is slime, but I don't want him going down for this.
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Fantastic post, Ginga! It needs to be on page one of every newspaper and internet news web site ... and read aloud by every TV talking head.

    I am sick to death of the way Lin Wood and the RST have spun the contaminant DNA into "intruder evidence." Now, it's the ONLY evidence ever talked about by the news media. Forget all the evidence leading to the Ramseys (fibers, handwriting, etc.). The media has swallowed it hook, line and sinker, never bothering to ask the obvious and intelligent questions. None of them know, or care, that the so-called DNA evidence is incomplete and practically non-existant. To hear them tell it, there's a great big blob of it under JonBenet's fingernails and in her panties, AND IT MATCHES!

    Lies, lies and more lies. That's all we ever here. When is the media going to really investigate this case and start telling the truth?

    May we all live so long.
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Dang, Tril, where HAVE you been! Excellent info! I actually forgot the "stutter" mentioned in the DNA testing. We do have a partial copy of the original report on the DNA results, and as much as they love to point out that the Ramseys were "cleared" by the DNA not matching them, the document in fact clearly states "IF THERE IS ONLY ONE DONOR" so and so can be elminated.

    So thanks for jumping in. And please continue! Welcome back.
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thanking you for having the patience to go over this again WY. I never tire of reading what you have to say about the DNA in this case. Thank you for your reassurance.
  15. Tril

    Tril Member

    aha, koldkase! So that's how the R males were eliminated as possible donors! Thanks for clearing that up.

    And thanks for the welcome. :cheerful:
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Welcome to FFJ, Tril! I'm just curious ... what was your previous "hat," or would you rather not say?
  17. Tril

    Tril Member

    Hi, Cherokee. I was Ivy at Websleuths, until a couple of years ago when I got TO'd (I deserved it) for getting carried away in the political forum during the time when some of us were in an uproar over the upcoming presidential election. I was so ashamed after my second TO, that I never tried to go back. Maybe I was then banned...I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't return. Anyway, before that, I'd behaved myself, and I will here. It won't be a problem. For one thing, I've learned my lesson, and for another, I won't discuss politics, no matter what. I'm here at FFJ only for the JonBenet case.
  18. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Tril, you hit it solid.
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Hi Ivy ... it's good to see you! I thought you sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember the hat. It's been a long time since I left WS and made FFJ my posting home. Glad you're here.
  20. Tril

    Tril Member

    Barry Scheck on Wolf Blizter just said that Henry Lee bought some panties from the same manufacturer as the ones found on JonBenet's body, and that Lee found DNA on them. (I didn't know that.)

    Scheck also said that the DNA testing that was done on the panties found on JonBenet was an early form of DNA testing.
  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