Search results

That is an interesting article. Its clear that there are, indeed, conflicting studies.

Solace, I think we have discussed the DNA issue to death, and we obviously don't agree with one another. So, lets talk about some of the other evidence... Before the new DNA evidence came out, I thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty, but I didn't think the evidence...

The previous studies that you have posted don't conflict with mine. Its pretty obvious that you are not closely examining the studies that you post. You obviously didn't read the study that I posted. It deals directly with your study. They examined the findings of Oorschot and Jones (your...

Except there is nothing in his study that indicated they used routine STR testing.

I said "if they did use routine testing". Of course conflicting studies are possible.

This study is only useful if they used routine STR testing. Where does it say this type of testing was used? If they did use routine testing, it seems as if we have conflicting studies.

Sure. Routine testing issue-http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh52kcyVPfSCXQv7rZ-DA9UO0l5gD91QJD180 Secondary transfer issue-http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

I did read the whole study. It seems as if you probably didn't. I am not talking about primary transfer, I am talking about secondary transfer. And the study is very clear that secondary transfer didn't allow for an interpretable genotype.

I understand.

It means that the DNA they detected couldn't have been secondary transfer because the test they used (a routine test) couldn't have detected secondary transfer. They didn't need to use a LCN test because they had enough DNA to do a routine test. If they had enough cells to do a routine...

That study doesn't necessarily cast doubt on anything I have said. This study is more specific and relevant to secondary transfer... http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf Their conclusion..."Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental...

Yea, it is.

Well, I wouldn't argue with that.

Darlin? LOL! Do you normally call other men "Darlin"?

I am not touting Henry. I touted a peer-reviewed, scientific study (regarding secondary transfer) conducted by five forensic experts (one of which happed to be Lee). That does not mean I am touting Henry.

You bet

It couldn't have been secondary transfer. Secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but not with routine testing. They used routine testing for the new DNA.

True True Yeah, but I am talking about degradation due to the passage of time. Not some other reason. Show me where Henry says anything about the DNA found in the panties and degradation due to time. Solace, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. You claimed that we know that...

Honey? Really?!? I am "obsessed" with Latin because I have used a few Latin terms that are commonly used in argument? Wow, that sound like another.....non-sequitur.

Dr. Lee speculated that the DNA could have been from a factory worker (which we now know is untrue); but this has nothing to due with the subject of DNA degradation due to time.