1460 users online (232 members and 1228 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55

Dna

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514

    Dna

    For those that are buying the latest B.S. from the Ramsey spin team on this so-called "DNA" they claim is the "killer's" - please stop and really THINK about this scenario!!
    Do you really think that the perp who committed and staged this crime and spent SO much time in the Ramsey home and with JonBenet and the crime scene - would have SOOOOOO little "DNA" left at the scene that they cannot even get a full 13 markers to make a "match"????
    THINK!! The amount of DNA scrounged up was so miniscule and degraded that Dr. Henry Lee, a world reknowned forensic scientist and consultant on the case and evidence stated that the Ramsey case IS NOT a "DNA case."
    It just isn't there.
    And THAT is the key. The lack of it. That should be the focus. Not the teensy speck they found that isn't even enough to be a bona fide sample to match to anyone. Making it oh so safe for the Ramseys to tell a half-truth that the DNA in her undies "does not match any Ramsey" thereby tricking the public into thinking, "Oh gee, the Ramseys must be innocent afterall!" Well it doesn't "MATCH" anyone!!!! Including the perp.

    Now let's stop and THINK about what forensic evidence WAS found on the victim and the murder weapon. Fibers. From whom? Some unknown source?
    No! A source who was and admits to being IN THE HOUSE on the night of the murder. Her mother. Patsy. Patsy's clothing fibers are found INTERTWINED in that knot around her daughter's neck and IN the paint tote where the broken paint brush was taken from.

    If there was some "intruder" who committed this crime he would have left far more "DNA" than was found in the speck in her underwear and fingernails.
    The absence of it alone tells you whatever WAS found there - has no connection to the case.
    This whole media babble lately is nothing more than "Lin-Spin."
    I mean - have you seen District Attorney Keenan on any of these shows confirming what is being spun??
    Were this case truly being "re-investigated" and the Ramsey's "cleared" - she'd be the first one out there to shout it. Or comment on it.
    Nada. Cuz it ain't so.

    That case of the "Amy" girl was investigated and determined to be unrelated to the Ramsey case.
    Duh.
    This post is my opinion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    DNA is a great forensic tool. The RST's screwing with it is going to alienate them from true LE. Smoke and mirrors work on the gullible only.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    The dna will solve the case, I think! I think..it's silly to "think" otherwise, but that's how "I think".
    I'm too stricken with holiday F'un to look but I do "think" that even a few markers that match from nails to panties put the odds at something like 4000 to 1 that it's the same guy. Not high in the light of numbers we hear in a courtroom, billions ,trillions, but high enough to safely "think" it's from the same source.
    Tonight, it's told there are male fish in the Potomac full of roe. A great scientist/poet/writer..amazing combo in one person..predicted this and worse, and never did she try to amaze anyone, she just could "think". If anyone is choosing to give a holiday gift to a cause, "The Rachel Carson Council" is a worthy organization to consider.
    http://members.aol.com/rccouncil/ourpage/index.htm

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I'm too stricken with holiday F'un to look but I do "think" that even a few markers that match from nails to panties put the odds at something like 4000 to 1 that it's the same guy. Not high in the light of numbers we hear in a courtroom, billions ,trillions, but high enough to safely "think" it's from the same source.
    Sissi, I think you missed K777's point. In order to believe the DNA found on JonBenet is even RELATED to this case, you have to answer TWO questions:

    1) If you wanted to leave a degraded, broken strand of DNA under someone's fingernail, how would you do it?

    2) If you wanted to leave a degraded, broken strand of DNA in someone's underpants, how would you do it?

    There is your problem, sissi...NOBODY can do ONE of those two things much less both! Once you realize that, you'll understand that this is NOT a DNA case.


    As far as your claim that the DNA under the fingernails matches what is in the panties, nobody knows that. It's a case myth because that information has not been released to the public.

    But let's assume the two *DO* match. Broken strands from *TWO* independent unrelated sources??? That screams "contamination" all over it!
    If you contaminated two objects in a laboratory (or even your kitchen at home) wouldn't it make more sense to you that it was the same contaminate that spoiled both samples? Of course it would--two different contaminates would be a rare situation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    The main point is that there is absolutley NO indication whatsoever that the degraded/contaminated speck of DNA that is so miniscule they can't even get a full reading on it - is related in any way, shape or form to the JonBenet Ramsey murder!!
    Were there some unknown perp that committed this crime - his DNA would be PLENTIFUL. It is not.
    The person/persons involved in this crime spent a LOT of T-I-M-E messing *with the body of JonBenet. One would expect to find hairS, saliva, fibers, etc. of an unknown source all over the place. That is not the case.
    Instead - what DO we find?
    *Patsy Ramsey's fibers in the knot in the cord and in the paint tote.
    *John Ramsey's shirt fibers in JonBenet's crotch.
    *JonBenet WIPED DOWN and pants pulled back up. Something a sexual predator could care less about - but something a parent would do.
    *JonBenet WRAPPED UP and laid on a blanket - again, something a sexual pervert would not do - but something a parent definitely would do.
    *Patsy Ramsey's linguistics and disguised handwriting in the note.
    *John and Patsy's lies to cover for Burke.
    And so much more pointing to a familial homicide covered up.

    You CANNOT look at one isolated circumstance of a murder case (this speck of degraded DNA) and say, "Ah Ha! There is the answer!" while ignoring the plethora of other factual evidence!!
    That's what SPIN is all about.
    That is what you are currently witnessing (once again) in the media - not by the actual authorities in the case - but alas, by the suspects' LAWYER!!

    This is NOT a DNA case. That has been stated by those in the know who have no personal motivation one way or another on the outcome of this case other than the TRUTH.
    This post is my opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    From Tom Bennett to the Boulder Daily Camera:
    "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Tonight, it's told there are male fish in the Potomac full of roe. A great scientist/poet/writer..amazing combo in one person..predicted this and worse, and never did she try to amaze anyone, she just could "think". If anyone is choosing to give a holiday gift to a cause, "The Rachel Carson Council" is a worthy organization to consider.
    http://members.aol.com/rccouncil/ourpage/index.htm
    My husband is a farmer.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    OK am I remembering this correctly? The DNA has been said to be "old (or something like that) and degraded. Dr Meyer didn't use clean clippers. He used the same ones that he used on another cadaver. He didn't use a different clean clipper on each nail like he was suppose to either.

    Could the DNA that was found be from the prior cadaver and is there a possibility that cross contamination occured as a result of that? IOW could he have been so lax (we know he didn't do a thourough job and has been blasted by his peers in the profession) that when he was putting the clippings into whatever he put them into that some of the degraded DNA fell onto the panties?

    Just typing out loud here....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    I wonder how the DNA got under her nails AND in her panties? I feel like she probably was grabbing and struggling somewhat in this attack and in doing so, obtained the DNA under her nails and panties. The perp cleaned up what he thought was all evidence, just missed a tiny bit.

    The fibers (which I have yet to see were proven to be the exact fibers from either of the Ramsey's- just consistent with) could have easily come from when both parents were putting the child to bed that night. They held her, carried her, etc. it will transfer fibers!

    I think if there was cross contamination of the DNA from the clippers they would be able to take the sample and compare it to the previously deceased person and see if it matches that.

    If someone sneezed near JBR, they would have traced the DNA to someone at the parties she attended that evening.

    If the DNA came from a unknown source, such as the manufacturer of the panties, it is unlikely she would have it under her fingernails too, but it is not an absolute impossibility either.

    It is my understanding that the DNA obtained was from a blood spot in her underwear. I heard this very recently, but cannot source it at this time.

    IMO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    Were there some unknown perp that committed this crime - his DNA would be PLENTIFUL. It is not. WHERE IS THE RAMSEY'S DNA THEN? IT SHOULD BE PLENTIFUL.The person/persons involved in this crime spent a LOT of T-I-M-E messing *with the body of JonBenet. One would expect to find hairS, saliva, fibers, etc. of an unknown source all over the place. That is not the case.
    Instead - what DO we find?
    *Patsy Ramsey's fibers in the knot in the cord and in the paint tote.
    *John Ramsey's shirt fibers in JonBenet's crotch. COULD HAVE COME FROM BEING CARRIED TO BED AND CHANGED FOR BED THAT EVENING. IN THE PAINT TOTE FROM WRAPPING PRESENTS EARLIER.*JonBenet WIPED DOWN and pants pulled back up. Something a sexual predator could care less about - but something a parent would do. SOMETHING A SEXUAL PREDATOR WOULD DO WHO DIDN'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT.
    *
    THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, BUT I THINK WE ARE JUST WAY OFF ON THIS. SORRY, JUST MY OPINION.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by twizzler333
    I wonder how the DNA got under her nails AND in her panties? I feel like she probably was grabbing and struggling somewhat in this attack and in doing so, obtained the DNA under her nails and panties. The perp cleaned up what he thought was all evidence, just missed a tiny bit.
    You probably don't realize it, but what you're saying is impossible. A perp could not "clean up" DNA and leave only half of the DNA strand intact.

    Quote Originally Posted by twizzler333
    I think if there was cross contamination of the DNA from the clippers they would be able to take the sample and compare it to the previously deceased person and see if it matches that.
    Meyer didn't use a clean clippers for each fingernail and there is the question whether the clippers he used was even clean. Who knows who used them last. There is also the possibility of airborne DNA contamination in Meyer's lab. Perhaps it was a visitor or janitor who sneezed in the area the samples were in.

    There are a lot of different scenerios where the samples could have gotten contaminated, but the important thing is that there is no way anyone could have deposited that microscopic amount of degraded, broken strand DNA on Jonbenet--even if they wanted to.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    So, this DNA will never be matched to anyone? Impossible to do so? Correct to assume this is what Henry Lee was referring to when he said this was not a DNA case?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    So, this DNA will never be matched to anyone? Impossible to do so? Correct to assume this is what Henry Lee was referring to when he said this was not a DNA case?
    Absolutely , you can assume anything , we all pick our sources and then "assume".
    I believe the source of the dna was from saliva, think it's wonderful that they could salvage enough to put it in a database, and believe one day the perp will be caught based on this.

    Science has moved forward, great leaps have been achieved just in the few years since Jonbenet's death. (saliva btw if I recall degrades dna) When one considers the mind-set ,the source, the collection and the chain of custody, I find it remarkable that this dna made it to codis.

    But hey, Bennett/Smit they are pretty equal, pick your source.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Absolutely , you can assume anything , we all pick our sources and then "assume".
    I believe the source of the dna was from saliva, think it's wonderful that they could salvage enough to put it in a database, and believe one day the perp will be caught based on this.

    Science has moved forward, great leaps have been achieved just in the few years since Jonbenet's death. (saliva btw if I recall degrades dna) When one considers the mind-set ,the source, the collection and the chain of custody, I find it remarkable that this dna made it to codis.

    But hey, Bennett/Smit they are pretty equal, pick your source.
    Did Smit say it was from saliva? I can't remember.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Does Not Apply. Quasi facts, quasi reasoning powers and science fiction belong on the Art Bell show and in the tabs. Had there been an intruder, there likely would have been a substantial deposit of DNA. The fact there isn't points away from an intruder, not to an intruder. Yet the minds that prefer the twilight zone or the amoral world of lawyers cling to the slimmest of non-evidence of an intruder.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast