The DNA Question

Yes, WY, I’m listening to you and always have. I personally know
little to nothing about DNA, but do know you have probably
already predicted the Ramsey-serving tests results of Karr’s DNA:
“Inconclusive.†What other out do they have and still hold Karr
as a “suspect?â€

 

Oh, thank you, WY has forgiven me.... ray:

I agree, EW, it's going to be quite interesting to see the same old pattern of "inconclusive" and "4.5 out of a non-existent scale of 5" emerge if they can't nail this guy any other way.

 

OK, now Dr. KOBLINSKY has stated that he doesn't think this DNA comparison can be "inconclusive." He said it will match the markers present or it won't.

Are they reading here?

 

MSNBC reported this morning (finally!) that the DNA may not be reliable in this case because the unknown DNA that was mixed with JonBenet's blood was so minute (less than a strand). Also, they said investigators had purchased the same brand of panties and found small amounts of DNA in some of them, which is thought to have come from the manufacturer. I think it was Wendy Murphy who was talking to the reporter (I was in my car listening on XM radio and I'm pretty sure it was Wendy's voice).

They also reported that Dr. Lee had said long ago that this was "not a DNA case."

They also reported that some nutjob said he is 99% sure that Karr wrote the ransom letter. PUHLEEEEZE. WHat a loser.

 

MSNBC reported this morning (finally!) that the DNA may not be reliable in this case because the unknown DNA that was mixed with JonBenet's blood was so minute (less than a strand). Also, they said investigators had purchased the same brand of panties and found small amounts of DNA in some of them, which is thought to have come from the manufacturer. I think it was Wendy Murphy who was talking to the reporter (I was in my car listening on XM radio and I'm pretty sure it was Wendy's voice).

They also reported that Dr. Lee had said long ago that this was "not a DNA case."

On Joe last night, Clint Van Zandy reminded us of the DNA found in unopened panties.

Wendy's the greatest.

 

What was Limpwood saying last night on LKL about finding another spot of blood on the panties in 1999? So. . . two years later they happen to be looking at the underwear and EUREKA! another bloodstain magically appears. Is he on drugs? I know the investigators are incompetant, but does this make sense?

Limpwood, 8/21/06:

"There's been a lot of speculation. I know that a lot of people reference Dr. Henry Lee talking about the DNA not being of good quality. Dr. Lee was not involved in the investigation in 1999 when a second spot of blood found in JonBenet's underwear was tested.

And from that blood spot a DNA sample was extracted that was tested. It was consistent with other DNA that had been found on her body and it was of such quality that Mary Lacy was able to get it certified in late 2003 and entered into the FBI national database."

 

I wouldn't put it past them to take blood from Karrina and put a titch on the panties - or even the swab that seems to have disappeared off the radar that was taken in Thailand.

Wouldn't put it past that bunch for a minute.

And...this morning Karrina's lawyer said Karr was upset about having to wear the orange twin tower's suit because he didn't want to taint the jury pool. Interesting doncha think? That he feels it will go that far?


.

 

WY: I'm trying to do that - to think really hard about the DNA, which is why I'd be very interested in info where exactly the unidentified DNA was found: Do you happen to know if this DNA was found only in the blood spot in JB's underpants or also in other non-bloody parts of the garment?

 

I honestly don't know, rashomon. I've never heard of the foreign DNA being found on the non-bloody parts of the underwear. No one from any of the labs has spoken on the DNA. The only ones who have spoken are from the RST, and I know not to trust what they say.

However (you knew I was going to say that, didn't you?), when lab people test for DNA from a sample, they also test control samples. IOW, they would test the sample that had blood on it, but they should also test an adjacent, unbloodied part of the crotch area. They would have to test all of the panty material in order to say there was absolutely no other DNA there, and I'm sure they didn't do that.

Here's a pretty good website for how DNA collection and testing is supposed to be done.

http://www.dna.gov/training/letraining/adv/dna/dna-2-28.htm

 

i'm a prophet

I predicted that the RST would say the DNA doesn't matter because it could be from the manufacturer. The rest of my prophecy hasn't been proven yet though - that the DNA will not be consistent with JMK's. However, there are so few DNA markers from the panties that it probably is consistent with multitudes of peoples DNA maybe even JMK but it will not further their case.

 

BTW - his two female attorneys were just on CNN and said that Karr has not given his DNA yet.

 

Hannity and Colmes were reporting that the DNA swab is still in Thailand! The CBI hasn't even got it yet.

 

Is it true (as has been posted on another forum by someone who claimed to be a biologist and sounded quite credible) that it is very unusual for nine markers to have been preserved in DNA coming from sneeze or cough?

Has possible lab contamination been considered?

I have recently read a book about the 1996 murder of Penny Scaggs ("The Good Wife" - thanks to poster Texan who recommended this book). Unsourced DNA found under the victim's fingernail in all probablity got there through lab contamination, although it was a lab with an excellent reputation which had conducted the testing.

 

In all likelihood, that panty DNA (other than JBR's blood) had nothing to do with the crime. With the DNA under her fingernails having lost credibility because of Coroner Meyer's use of the same nail clipper for all 10 fingers, it makes sense that it was said of this case that "It won't be a DNA case".