DNA - conclusive?

Various threads on this board have begun to turn towards discussion of the DNA, so I thought I would start out a thread devoted to that topic. I think it is important to note that there are certain things which the DNA tells us, and others that it does not. You can't have your cake and eat it. But it goes both ways, with regards to the DNA...

For IDI enthusiasts, a favorite line of reasoning is the following: if the DNA has exculpated some suspects (i.e., Helgoth), then it must exculpate the Ramseys as well, right? Yes and no.

No question about it, the DNA does certainly shed some favorable light on the Ramseys. However, if the BPD did such a bad job, as IDI's love to point out, who's to say they did not screw up with the DNA? It took 8 years to get a sample eligible for CODIS. There has also been criticism regarding the samples from under the fingernails taken with supposedly contaminated nail clippers. If you criticize LE, you must be wary of all of this evidence.

But on the other hand, assuming the tests are done correctly and the samples are properly extracted, you must admit that the DNA does not match the Ramseys. This is well-documented. However, another favorite line of IDI's, especially when trying to tie Helgoth into the picture, is the following: more than one person was involved. Well, if that is the case, then the DNA is non-conclusive as far as eliminating suspects go. If the DNA allows people like Helgoth to be accused as working with an accomplice, who's to say it does not do the same for the Ramseys?

We must all be open-minded here, on both sides of the fence. I go back and forth all the time. However, one thing which I cannot get out of my head, are the circumstances surrounding the crime. For starters, you have a crime that 9 times out of 10, would end up in a family member's guilt. Then, you have the instant lawyering up, vague answers (if answers at all), and media manipulation by the Ramseys. While this is by no means evidence that is going to get you anywhere in a court of law, it is highly suggestive of some sort of involvement.

Now let's switch gears over to Michael Helgoth. Here's a man, who while somewhat strange, holds no ties to the Ramsey family. He has been accused of his odd behavior by a man with a criminal record. His DNA, too, did not match. He owned a pair of one of the most popular brand of hiking boots, Hi-Tec, and he lived in mountainous Colorado. He died suspiciously (murder or suicide?) in the days following DA Alex Hunter's announcement that the search was narrowing. However, noone in his family seems concerned with determining if he was indeed murdered, only those behind these recent TV specials. If your son/brother/friend killed himself, and people suggested he was murdered, wouldn't you want to find out the truth? Their silence speaks volumes. Let Michael Helgoth rest in peace. He obviously lived a troubled life. Here, I think the DNA should allow him to be released, because, IMO, there is really nothing to suggest his guilt.

DNA can be some pretty damning evidence these days. It has completely restructured our criminal justice system. Just look up Barry Scheck's Innocence Project. But don't look where the DNA does not take you. True, the DNA does not take you to the Ramseys, but plenty of other evidence does. I hope that responses to this thread will discuss what the DNA does/can/will tell us, as I'm not trying to implicate the Ramseys here. I'm just trying to explain my opinion, which I feel is an objective one, as to just what the DNA can/can't tell us.

Discuss...

Voice of Reason said:

True, the DNA does not take you to the Ramseys, but plenty of other evidence does.

Click to expand...

VoR,

Please don't forget that, techically, JR, JAR, and JeffR are male Ramseys, but BR is technically a male Paugh if the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction was used. And mitochondial was likely the method of DNA extraction used because it's doubtful there was any nuclear DNA in the sample from the caucasian male (which consisted of saliva). The mitochondrial method can use only the mother's ancestral DNA.

The authorities, in trying to not violate Colorado law protecting the identity of minors, can trick the public by using technical terms. And this assertion is supported by the tricky affidavit drafted by Lin Wood but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000 saying BR was never a suspect, yet BR has NEVER BEEN CLEARED. Therefore, because of the Colorado Children's Code and the court gag order still in force on the case, which permits trickery and outright lies to protect the identity of minors, I don't trust what the authorities release in regard to BR and DS -- particularly so with leaks regarding DNA results.

BlueCrab

And this assertion is supported by the tricky affidavit drafted by Lin Wood but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000 saying BR was never a suspect, yet BR has NEVER BEEN CLEARED.

But wouldn't you have to be CLEARED to NOT be a suspect?

I would think one would have to be a suspect first to be cleared later. It would be like saying , that little girl, Daphne, is cleared in the murder. Of course not, she was never a suspect.

capps said:

And this assertion is supported by the tricky affidavit drafted by Lin Wood but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000 saying BR was never a suspect, yet BR has NEVER BEEN CLEARED.

But wouldn't you have to be CLEARED to NOT be a suspect?

Click to expand...

capps,

Correct, but not in the convoluted thinking of the Boulder authorities. No one of authority in Boulder will officially state that BR has been CLEARED. Yet, in his October 12, 2000 affidavit, Hunter gets away with saying BR has never been a suspect and is only a "witness". It doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, much of the media misinterpret the "never a suspect" phrase as meaning BR has been cleared, and no one of authority corrects them. Why? I'll tell you why. Lin Wood, Alex Hunter, Mary Keenan, and other Boulder authorities knew it would be misinterpreted as meaning "cleared". They designed it that way. It's a fraudulent effort to mislead the public; it's fraudulent per se; and it's been working.

If I'm not right, then let someone of authority in Boulder officially say or write that BR has been cleared. They won't, because they know BR can never be cleared.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

capps,

Correct, but not in the convoluted thinking of the Boulder authorities. No one of authority in Boulder will officially state that BR has been CLEARED. Yet, in his October 12, 2000 affidavit, Hunter gets away with saying BR has never been a suspect and is only a "witness". It doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, much of the media misinterpret the "never a suspect" phrase as meaning BR has been cleared, and no one of authority corrects them. Why? I'll tell you why. Lin Wood, Alex Hunter, Mary Keenan, and other Boulder authorities knew it would be misinterpreted as meaning "cleared". They designed it that way. It's a fraudulent effort to mislead the public; it's fraudulent per se; and it's been working.

If I'm not right, then let someone of authority in Boulder officially say or write that BR has been cleared. They won't, because they know BR can never be cleared.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Yeah, BC, it's called Boulder-speak.

Before anyone can say the suspect DNA in the JBR case can identify a killer, they had better be able to prove when that DNA was left there. There is absolutely no evidence the DNA was left in JBR's panties the night of the murder; in fact, the evidence would seem to prove otherwise.

There was no problem at all retrieving viable and identifiable DNA from JBR's blood DNA in her underwear. There was, however, considerable trouble obtaining enough markers from the foreign DNA. DNA doesn't come in fractions - every cell in the human body carries a complete genetic code. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that if the foreign DNA were left in her panties at or about the same time the blood was left there; that is, the night of the murder, that both samples would be in approximately the same condition? If they could identify the foreign DNA as coming from spit, there must have been enough there to analyse. Why, then, couldn't they get a complete strand of DNA for identification? It makes no sense, if it was left the same time as JB's DNA was left.

The foreign DNA cannot be dated. Regardless of how the RST wants to try and spin it, it is a non-issue. All an attorney need ask a DNA expert in a court room is, can you tell this court when the foreign DNA was left there. They can't. Case closed on the DNA.

If, however, they had fingerprints and other evidence incriminating someone in the murder, the DNA would take on a very high significance if it matched that person's DNA. The DNA in itself will never convict anyone in this case, because there is no supporting evidence - no fingerprints, nothing. In addition, the DNA was degraded, and a full set of markers couldn't be obtained. That's not good enough for the kind of identification statistics that would be needed in a courtroom.

That DNA could have been, and probably was, deposited on the fabric of the new underwear JBR was wearing during its manufacture. All anyone needed to do was sneeze or cough on the fabric - there's the DNA, and there's also the reason it was degraded. It's not farfetched - it's a reasonable explanation for the DNA, more reasonable than what the RST would have us believe.

BlueCrab said:

capps,

Correct, but not in the convoluted thinking of the Boulder authorities. No one of authority in Boulder will officially state that BR has been CLEARED. Yet, in his October 12, 2000 affidavit, Hunter gets away with saying BR has never been a suspect and is only a "witness". It doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, much of the media misinterpret the "never a suspect" phrase as meaning BR has been cleared, and no one of authority corrects them. Why? I'll tell you why. Lin Wood, Alex Hunter, Mary Keenan, and other Boulder authorities knew it would be misinterpreted as meaning "cleared". They designed it that way. It's a fraudulent effort to mislead the public; it's fraudulent per se; and it's been working.

If I'm not right, then let someone of authority in Boulder officially say or write that BR has been cleared. They won't, because they know BR can never be cleared.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Exactly Bluecrab. In fact, let me back up what you are saying with a legal document. This is directly from the Judge's order in the NY Post lawsuit the Ramseys filed on behalf of Burke. There are alot of very interesting statements in it.
This is what the judge had to say:

"Defendant (NY Post) claims the evidence sought in the subpoena is crucial to its defense to the defamation claim. It states the documents sought are directly related to key issues in that action, including Burke's possible involvement in the murder and/or his parents' possible involvelment in a cover-up, reported plea bargain negotiations with Burke's representatives, and even whether someone in the District Attorney's office provided the information about Burke to the Star magazine.

Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim, whether the truth is known at the time of the alleged wrongdoing or not Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 8 F.3d 1222, 1228 (7th Cir 1993) (Citing Restatement (Second) of Torts 581A, comment h (1977)).

Respondent (Ramseys) does not disagree that the truth or falsity of the allegations against Burke is a core issue. Evidence that would support either the allegations in defendant's article or the statement's in Hunter's affidavit would be relevant to that issue. The fact that respondent released similar or identical information to the press as was contained in the affidavit does not detract from the relevancy of such evidence. While the press release may show consistency in respondents public position with regard to Burke, neither it nor the affidavit can substitute for documentary evidence regarding the investigation.

Defendant also asserts that information sought is relevant in light of the prior drafts of the affidavit provided by respondent. A comparison of the affidavit and draft (Exhibits B and D to response) reflects that Hunter decided to delete certain statements, including statement that investigators were satisfied that Burke was not a suspect and that Burke was never viewed as a suspect." (bold mine)

Burke Ramsey has NEVER been cleared of the crime.
Nor has his mother or father. EVER.

Watching you said:

Before anyone can say the suspect DNA in the JBR case can identify a killer, they had better be able to prove when that DNA was left there. There is absolutely no evidence the DNA was left in JBR's panties the night of the murder; in fact, the evidence would seem to prove otherwise.

There was no problem at all retrieving viable and identifiable DNA from JBR's blood DNA in her underwear. There was, however, considerable trouble obtaining enough markers from the foreign DNA. DNA doesn't come in fractions - every cell in the human body carries a complete genetic code. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that if the foreign DNA were left in her panties at or about the same time the blood was left there; that is, the night of the murder, that both samples would be in approximately the same condition? If they could identify the foreign DNA as coming from spit, there must have been enough there to analyse. Why, then, couldn't they get a complete strand of DNA for identification? It makes no sense, if it was left the same time as JB's DNA was left.

The foreign DNA cannot be dated. Regardless of how the RST wants to try and spin it, it is a non-issue. All an attorney need ask a DNA expert in a court room is, can you tell this court when the foreign DNA was left there. They can't. Case closed on the DNA.

If, however, they had fingerprints and other evidence incriminating someone in the murder, the DNA would take on a very high significance if it matched that person's DNA. The DNA in itself will never convict anyone in this case, because there is no supporting evidence - no fingerprints, nothing. In addition, the DNA was degraded, and a full set of markers couldn't be obtained. That's not good enough for the kind of identification statistics that would be needed in a courtroom.

That DNA could have been, and probably was, deposited on the fabric of the new underwear JBR was wearing during its manufacture. All anyone needed to do was sneeze or cough on the fabric - there's the DNA, and there's also the reason it was degraded. It's not farfetched - it's a reasonable explanation for the DNA, more reasonable than what the RST would have us believe.

Click to expand...

WY, thank you for all the info. I forgot most of that. Doesn't there have to be a certain amount of markers before DNA can positively, without a doubt, be identified?

Watching you said:

Before anyone can say the suspect DNA in the JBR case can identify a killer, they had better be able to prove when that DNA was left there. There is absolutely no evidence the DNA was left in JBR's panties the night of the murder; in fact, the evidence would seem to prove otherwise.

There was no problem at all retrieving viable and identifiable DNA from JBR's blood DNA in her underwear. There was, however, considerable trouble obtaining enough markers from the foreign DNA. DNA doesn't come in fractions - every cell in the human body carries a complete genetic code. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that if the foreign DNA were left in her panties at or about the same time the blood was left there; that is, the night of the murder, that both samples would be in approximately the same condition? If they could identify the foreign DNA as coming from spit, there must have been enough there to analyse. Why, then, couldn't they get a complete strand of DNA for identification? It makes no sense, if it was left the same time as JB's DNA was left.

The foreign DNA cannot be dated. Regardless of how the RST wants to try and spin it, it is a non-issue. All an attorney need ask a DNA expert in a court room is, can you tell this court when the foreign DNA was left there. They can't. Case closed on the DNA.

If, however, they had fingerprints and other evidence incriminating someone in the murder, the DNA would take on a very high significance if it matched that person's DNA. The DNA in itself will never convict anyone in this case, because there is no supporting evidence - no fingerprints, nothing. In addition, the DNA was degraded, and a full set of markers couldn't be obtained. That's not good enough for the kind of identification statistics that would be needed in a courtroom.

That DNA could have been, and probably was, deposited on the fabric of the new underwear JBR was wearing during its manufacture. All anyone needed to do was sneeze or cough on the fabric - there's the DNA, and there's also the reason it was degraded. It's not farfetched - it's a reasonable explanation for the DNA, more reasonable than what the RST would have us believe.

Click to expand...

Brilliant Watching You! It sums up what I was hoping to post and get across.

I ran across this comment by Chuck Green who was a guest on the Dan Abrams show on MSNBC awhile back:
"Well, the DNA that showed up inside her underwear also showed up inside the - on the underwear - of a similar or an identical, actual set of underwear that the Ramseys - that hadn't been unpackaged yet. And so, the theory is that that was placed there, had got there during the manufacturing process and those pants came from Singapore I believe."

This is NOT a DNA case. Had there been some stranger/intruder having done all those things that were done in the house that night from the note, pen, blankets, paint tote, paintbrushes, cord, taking JonBenet's pants and panties down, molesting JonBenet, wiping her down, putting her pants and panties back on, tying her wrists, wrapping her up in a blanket etc. etc. - his DNA would be all over the place! It is NOT. Rather, you have this teensy, miniscule fragment of some DNA all alone all by it's itsy bitsy self - that cannot be dated and has NO other correlating evidence to support it (fingerprints etc.)
That fleck of DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the murder and cover-up of JonBenet Ramsey. If it did - you would have seen the BPD and District Attorney's office CLEAR John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey.
They have not and can not.
Despite the tireless spin they pay Lin Wood to perpetuate.

K777angel said:

I ran across this comment by Chuck Green who was a guest on the Dan Abrams show on MSNBC awhile back:
"Well, the DNA that showed up inside her underwear also showed up inside the - on the underwear - of a similar or an identical, actual set of underwear that the Ramseys - that hadn't been unpackaged yet. And so, the theory is that that was placed there, had got there during the manufacturing process and those pants came from Singapore I believe."

This is NOT a DNA case.

Click to expand...

angel,

Chuck Green was flying by the seat of his pants when he made that comment. He provided no source and is perpetuating a rumor he heard, which he admits is a theory.

The foreign male DNA in JonBenet's panties matches the foreign male DNA under her fingernails. That eliminates DNA from the manufacturing process.

This is definitely a DNA case. Foreign male DNA from saliva doesn't belong in the crotch of JonBenet's panties.

Since the pineapple evidence eliminates the likelihood of an intruder, the foreign male DNA has to be from a fifth person (or perhaps a sixth person) invited into the house that night by a Ramsey.

BlueCrab

With so many rumors floating around the DNA of the Ramsey case, could anyone point me to a definitive source regarding a few things...

1 - DNA in panties...blood, saliva, skin, semen?
2 - DNA under fingernails...same question?
3 - DNA under fingernails matches that in panties

I hear these three things being discussed so much, but I haven't seen a source (that is reliable) that claims what the DNA came from or whether it indeed matches (fingernails and panties).

There is no definitive source. Poking around in the various depositions (at sundance and elsewhere) is your best bet.

tipper said:

There is no definitive source. Poking around in the various depositions (at sundance and elsewhere) is your best bet.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I think that is sort of my point. Everyone is arguing about evidence that we don't even know the first thing about. First of all, if the DNA in the panties matches that under the fingernails, why is it that the DNA in the panties was put into CODIS, but not that under the fingernails? Well, if it matches, I guess there's no need to do both, but if there isn't enough from the fingernails to put into CODIS (which I believe is the case), then how do we know it matches?

Voice of Reason said:

With so many rumors floating around the DNA of the Ramsey case, could anyone point me to a definitive source regarding a few things...

1 - DNA in panties...blood, saliva, skin, semen?
2 - DNA under fingernails...same question?
3 - DNA under fingernails matches that in panties

I hear these three things being discussed so much, but I haven't seen a source (that is reliable) that claims what the DNA came from or whether it indeed matches (fingernails and panties).

Click to expand...

Rumors, spin, same difference, since they both seem to originate from the RST.

1. (foreign) DNA in panties - was not blood or semen, most probably not skin. I believe it was Lou Smit who said it was saliva, like I believe anything Smit says. However, common sense in this case says it was saliva. I don't recall hearing it from anyone except Smit, except for his mouthpiece at the swamp.

2. DNA under fingernails - this is even more sketchy than the alleged DNA in the underwear. At best they were able to scrape up 3 or 4 markers in the material they found under JB's fingernails. The RST has tried to prove a "match" from those 3 or 4 markers to the DNA in the panties; however, their efforts come across as desperate. Even if those 3 or 4 markers were to match up with 3 or 4 markers in the panty DNA, (which I seriously question), that in no way proves a match between the two.

It takes 13 loci (markers) to prove identification for CODIS (see http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/fbicore.htm). That's not a number I dreamed up - it's the criteria set forth by the FBI. Yet, the RST claims their DNA sample with 9 clear markers and an very iffy 10th marker made it into CODIS. While it's possible the sample was accepted by CODIS, the fact that it doesn't meet FBI CODIS criteria for identification leaves it on very shaky ground in a court room, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. IOW, while it could still be used, it would be lacking those critical three markers, which would practically nullify its use for identification.

3. See answer to #2.

It's important to understand that most of what we've been told about the alleged DNA has come from people who have little to no understanding of what DNA is and how it works. Couple this with the fact that the RST, who puts out this propaganda, is completely biased and top it off with the fact that as in many other issues regarding the Ramsey case, they think they know what they are talking about but are so far from being accurate, and you get a picture of what has happened. There is nothing worse than arrogant know-it-alls talking about scientific subjects about which they know, literally, nothing, and what they have read, they have interpreted totally incorrectly. It's ignorance sublime mixed in with pure stupidity.

Voice of Reason said:

With so many rumors floating around the DNA of the Ramsey case, could anyone point me to a definitive source regarding a few things...

1 - DNA in panties...blood, saliva, skin, semen?
2 - DNA under fingernails...same question?
3 - DNA under fingernails matches that in panties

I hear these three things being discussed so much, but I haven't seen a source (that is reliable) that claims what the DNA came from or whether it indeed matches (fingernails and panties).

Click to expand...

VoR,

The DNA results, like the handwriting and polygraph results, are not officially available to the public. Therefore, we must rely on leaks and information from sources who seem to be at least half-way credible.

From the CBS news release of the JonBenet story of March 26, 2005:

"The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing on the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to the killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that was also found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."

Lou Smit has also said that the DNA in the panties matches the DNA under the fingernails -- but I can't find where I read that. Smit has also said the foreign male DNA in the panties is from saliva, as did the Court TV JonBenet program last week.

BlueCrab

Watching you said:

2. DNA under fingernails - this is even more sketchy than the alleged DNA in the underwear. At best they were able to scrape up 3 or 4 markers in the material they found under JB's fingernails. The RST has tried to prove a "match" from those 3 or 4 markers to the DNA in the panties; however, their efforts come across as desperate. Even if those 3 or 4 markers were to match up with 3 or 4 markers in the panty DNA, (which I seriously question), that in no way proves a match between the two.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it. THey cannot say the DNA from the fingernails matches the DNA in the underwear any more than they can say:-

_ C _ _ _ P _ _ _ _ _ O _ is definitely = SCOTT PETERSON

Watching you said:

DNA under fingernails - this is even more sketchy than the alleged DNA in the underwear. At best they were able to scrape up 3 or 4 markers in the material they found under JB's fingernails. The RST has tried to prove a "match" from those 3 or 4 markers to the DNA in the panties; however, their efforts come across as desperate. Even if those 3 or 4 markers were to match up with 3 or 4 markers in the panty DNA, (which I seriously question), that in no way proves a match between the two.

It takes 13 loci (markers) to prove identification for CODIS (see http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/fbicore.htm). That's not a number I dreamed up - it's the criteria set forth by the FBI. Yet, the RST claims their DNA sample with 9 clear markers and an very iffy 10th marker made it into CODIS. While it's possible the sample was accepted by CODIS, the fact that it doesn't meet FBI CODIS criteria for identification leaves it on very shaky ground in a court room, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. IOW, while it could still be used, it would be lacking those critical three markers, which would practically nullify its use for identification.

It's important to understand that most of what we've been told about the alleged DNA has come from people who have little to no understanding of what DNA is and how it works. Couple this with the fact that the RST, who puts out this propaganda, is completely biased and top it off with the fact that as in many other issues regarding the Ramsey case, they think they know what they are talking about but are so far from being accurate, and you get a picture of what has happened. There is nothing worse than arrogant know-it-alls talking about scientific subjects about which they know, literally, nothing, and what they have read, they have interpreted totally incorrectly. It's ignorance sublime mixed in with pure stupidity.

Click to expand...

Watching you,

I respectfully disagree with what you have posted above.

I assure you I am not a member of the RST, and in fact jameson singles me out as the worst BORG of all the BORGS, but I believe this is definitely a DNA case. I'm no forensic scientist, but my common sense tells me the DNA in the panties and under the fingernails will be crucial in solving this case. To ignore DNA evidence, regardless of how many markers are available, would be irresponsible.

For example, it is true that CODIS prefers 13 DNA markers, but they will accept 10 markers as a minimum standard. Thirteen is an overkill just to get the numbers down to a manageable amount of cases for CODIS. CODIS is still buried under an avalanche of thousands of cases not yet put into the system.

If a suspect's DNA agrees with all 13 markers there is only one chance out of one billion that he is not the person whose DNA was found at the crime scene. That's an overkill no matter how you look at it. That's because, even if only as few as four to six markers match the crime scene evidence then it's enough to convict a suspect beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision is up to the jury, of course, but there are numerous people in jail right now whose DNA matched just four markers at the crime scene.

Thus, the DNA in the panties, with 10 markers, and the DNA under the fingernails, with only several markers but which apparently match the markers in the panties, is crucial and, IMO, will help crack the JonBenet murder case some day.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

Watching you,

I respectfully disagree with what you have posted above.

I assure you I am not a member of the RST, and in fact jameson singles me out as the worst BORG of all the BORGS, but I believe this is definitely a DNA case. I'm no forensic scientist, but my common sense tells me the DNA in the panties and under the fingernails will be crucial in solving this case. To ignore DNA evidence, regardless of how many markers are available, would be irresponsible.

For example, it is true that CODIS prefers 13 DNA markers, but they will accept 10 markers as a minimum standard. Thirteen is an overkill just to get the numbers down to a manageable amount of cases for CODIS. CODIS is still buried under an avalanche of thousands of cases not yet put into the system.

If a suspect's DNA agrees with all 13 markers there is only one chance out of one billion that he is not the person whose DNA was found at the crime scene. That's an overkill no matter how you look at it. That's because, even if only as few as four to six markers match the crime scene evidence then it's enough to convict a suspect beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision is up to the jury, of course, but there are numerous people in jail right now whose DNA matched just four markers at the crime scene.

Thus, the DNA in the panties, with 10 markers, and the DNA under the fingernails, with only several markers but which apparently match the markers in the panties, is crucial and, IMO, will help crack the JonBenet murder case some day.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

You are free to disagree with me. Would you like to explain how they are going to prove any of the DNA was deposited the night of the murder?

You are proving my point, actually, about people not understanding DNA when you say there were "several markers" under her fingernails. That simply isn't true. The DNA under JB's fingernails was old and degraded. That came out in Steve Thomas' book. No matter what anyone thinks of him, he's not lying about that. The proof is in the pudding - we've had posters who claimed there was flesh under JBR's fingernails from her "getting a piece" of her killer. In fact, Lou Smit said that. That is pure BS, because if she really had gotten a piece of her killer that left flesh under her fingernails, there would have been a wealth of fresh DNA for the scientists to analyze. Like I said, DNA doesn't come in fractions - if there were flesh there, the strands would have been gloriously intact - no one, two, three markers but a full strand of beautiful DNA. There would have been no doubt that JB "got a piece of her killer."

So, we have old, undated DNA under her nails, which could have come from anywhere and which we all have, truth be known, and undated, incomplete DNA in her underwear. You are missing my point about JB's DNA compared to the foreign DNA - both allegedly left at approximately the same time. JB's DNA was fresh enough to get full strands of DNA; yet, the foreign DNA was not. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Henry Lee has said this is not a DNA case. It's obvious to me it isn't. It's obvious to the real experts that it isn't. You can believe what you want. But, if the truth ever comes out, which I doubt, and if I'm still kicking around, I want I told you so rights.

Deal?

If a suspect's DNA agrees with all 13 markers there is only one chance out of one billion that he is not the person whose DNA was found at the crime scene. That's an overkill no matter how you look at it. That's because, even if only as few as four to six markers match the crime scene evidence then it's enough to convict a suspect beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision is up to the jury, of course, but there are numerous people in jail right now whose DNA matched just four markers at the crime scene.

Click to expand...

What's the rest of the story? I don't doubt there were cases where the DNA was inconclusive but there were a few markers that matched the defendent's DNA. I'll bet that in every one of those cases, the DNA was secondary evidence in a case rich with other evidence that led the police to the defendent to begin with.

The JBR case is one case where the DNA alone will never solve it. There is no evidence left at the scene that points to anyone (other than those who were inside the house that night). Even if they could prove where that DNA came from, they'd have to put that person in that house on the night JBR was killed. They have nothing that even indicates an intruder was in the house. That's because there was no intruder inside the house.

BTW, CODIS has had that DNA for nigh three years, now. I think they've had time to get it into the system.