1571 users online (253 members and 1318 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    The DNA

    What do we know about it?

    1) That there were at least three samples of foreign DNA found - in her underwear, under her fingernails and a third sample which is a secret and which is known as DNA-x.

    2) That the DNA under her fingernails was very fragmented and yielded only 3/4 of the necessary 13 markers.

    3) That the panty DNA was tested twice and that both samples were fragmented and did not yield the full 13 markers. The second sample yielded more than the first sample (perhaps due to improved testing techniques). The second sample yielded 9 good markers and a weaker, but just-useable 10th marker.

    4) That DNA-x was not found on her body or her clothes.

    5) That the people who have actual access to the lab results and testing of the DNA have made an official statement to say that the DNA may NOT be the killers and that it is so minute that it could have come from a cough or a sneeze during the manufacturing process. This statement was made after Ramsey supporters repeatedly claimed that the DNA was the killer's.

    6) That the testing process for the panty-DNA would result in JonBenet's DNA and the foreign DNA being "co-mingled" but that this does NOT mean that they were deposited at the same time. One way of understanding this is to think of two solutions of water - one contains dissolved sugar, the other contains dissolved salt. Pour one solution onto a piece of fabric and let it dry. Take it to another State, wait a week and then pour the other solution on top and let it dry. Now soak the fabric in water and test the water. It will contain both salt AND sugar - but they were not deposited at the same time OR even in the same State. Ramsey supporters who claim that they had to be desposited at the same time are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes (either that or they genuinely "don't understand")

    7) The foreign DNA is not Ramsey - or anyone else who has been tested.

    8) If the foreign DNA is not the killer's then it means that none of the good suspects are indeed eliminated after all (but that means Ramsey too so their supporters cling to the notion that it is the killer's).

    9) DNA fragments over time. Fresh DNA should not be fragmented - certainly not within a few hours. This is why the experts have described it as "old" DNA.

    What else do we know?
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061

    Hmmm

    Great thread Jayelles. What other thing do we know, welllll we know that we don't know who did it. Sorry.

    Back later.



    .
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    What else do we know?
    We also know that according to the initial CBI lab summary, the Ramseys were only ruled out definitively as having contributed to the underwear and nail samples IF the unidentified DNA came from just ONE person. The wording of the report implies strongly that if the unidentified DNA is itself a "mixture" of two or more samples from people, then the Ramseys are not ruled out as having contributed one or more of the markers.

    I take this to mean that one or more members of the Ramsey family do, in fact, have markers in common with the unidentified markers, but no individual Ramsey has all of the markers in common. For example, if John Ramsey matches marker A and C, and Patsy matches marker B and D, then both of them can be ruled out if the sample comes from one person who has markers A, B, C, and D. But if the sample is a mixture coming from one person who had A and C and another person who had B and D, then it may be Ramsey DNA.

    Of course, any intruder theorist worth their salt would not want to call attention to this, thus the distinct lack of emphasis on the CBI summary's emphasis that the results are based on an assumption that only one person contributed the unidentified DNA.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    I think it's important to consider that, according to sources, the DNA in the panties matches the DNA under the fingernails. If this is true, and I for one think it is, it would greatly lessen the probability that the foreign male DNA found on JonBenet is from a sneeze or similar innocent source.

    Also, a lot of mention is made of the fact that "only" nine clear markers, plus one somewhat unclear marker, can be identified from the DNA in the panties, whereas the FBI prefers 13 markers, and 10 markers at the minimum, to be identified before the DNA sample can be entered into CODIS, the national DNA data bank. But the minimum number of markers allowed is primarily an effort to limit the number of samples so that the CODIS system does not become buried and unmanageable. Thirteen markers may reduce the probability that the DNA at the crime scene is none other than the suspect's DNA down to perhaps one in several billion, but nine markers reducing the probability down to perhaps one in a million is not exactly shabby evidence either. Juries have been known to convict suspects using as few as six matching DNA markers.

    BlueCrab

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    I think it's important to consider that, according to sources, the DNA in the panties matches the DNA under the fingernails. If this is true, and I for one think it is, it would greatly lessen the probability that the foreign male DNA found on JonBenet is from a sneeze or similar innocent source.

    Also, a lot of mention is made of the fact that "only" nine clear markers, plus one somewhat unclear marker, can be identified from the DNA in the panties, whereas the FBI prefers 13 markers, and 10 markers at the minimum, to be identified before the DNA sample can be entered into CODIS, the national DNA data bank. But the minimum number of markers allowed is primarily an effort to limit the number of samples so that the CODIS system does not become buried and unmanageable. Thirteen markers may reduce the probability that the DNA at the crime scene is none other than the suspect's DNA down to perhaps one in several billion, but nine markers reducing the probability down to perhaps one in a million is not exactly shabby evidence either. Juries have been known to convict suspects using as few as six matching DNA markers.

    BlueCrab
    I beg your pardon Bluecrab, but there is no credible source which says that the fingernail DNA "matches" the panty DNA. We've seen the lab reports of the DNA and there appear to be just a tiny number of markers in the fingernail DNA - certainly not enough to claim a match.

    There has been no official statement about that fingernail DNA either. The only official statement we've had about the panty DNA is at it might NOT be the killers (Tom Bennett).

    Common sense tells us that if the DNA under her fingernails matched the DNA in her underwear then it would not have come from a sneeze in the factory. I cannot see Tom Bennett breaking his silence to state something completely daft.

    The "match" comment came from Lou Smit when went on TV to talk excitedly about the intruder evidence - which I may also remind you - included a packing peanut and a blue mark left on her body by a blue electrical arc LOL

    Believe me - if the fingernail DNA and panty DNA matched, the RST would be screaming it from the mountain tops! As it happens, no-one is willing to do that - because it ain't so!
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    I thought the reason the DNA was so minute was because her body was washed or cleaned up.

    I know her upper thigh appeared to have residue of some body fluid but it seemed to have been cleaned up.

    It is hard for me to think that someone sneezed long ago on her underwear and they are picking up that DNA. It makes me wonder why this doesn't come up often in cases.

    And couldn't "old" DNA be a wild card that sets a killer in prison free if this is true? They could find "old" DNA and compare it to the real killer, no match, so the killer walks out of prison.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    I beg your pardon Bluecrab, but there is no credible source which says that the fingernail DNA "matches" the panty DNA. We've seen the lab reports of the DNA and there appear to be just a tiny number of markers in the fingernail DNA - certainly not enough to claim a match.

    Jayelles,

    I agree the fingernail DNA was degraded and not nearly as convincing as the panty's 10 DNA markers, but even several matching markers from the fingernails, let's say three for the sake of argument, can be important. Three matching markers are not enough for a jury to convict on, but they can sure as hell raise eyebrows and cause investigators to take second and third looks at a suspect. Please remember that Mark Fuhrman, with Dr. Michael Baden ostensibly agreeing, let it be publicly known that the foreign male DNA found on JonBenet apparently contains some Ramsey family markers.

    BlueCrab

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Jayelles,

    I agree the fingernail DNA was degraded and not nearly as convincing as the panty's 10 DNA markers, but even several matching markers from the fingernails, let's say three for the sake of argument, can be important. Three matching markers are not enough for a jury to convict on, but they can sure as hell raise eyebrows and cause investigators to take second and third looks at a suspect. Please remember that Mark Fuhrman, with Dr. Michael Baden ostensibly agreeing, let it be publicly known that the foreign male DNA found on JonBenet apparently contains some Ramsey family markers.

    BlueCrab
    Which can easily be explained away by Ramsey's earlier statement that JonBenet needed help cleaning herself after using the toilet and would ask just about anyone to assist her.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ
    Which can easily be explained away by Ramsey's earlier statement that JonBenet needed help cleaning herself after using the toilet and would ask just about anyone to assist her.


    Linda7NJ,

    Toileting could be one explanation, but it is hardly the most likely one. Therefore, it would not "easily explain away" mixed foreign male DNA on JonBenet's crotch area that contains some Ramsey family markers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Linda7NJ,

    Toileting could be one explanation, but it is hardly the most likely one. Therefore, it would not "easily explain away" mixed foreign male DNA on JonBenet's crotch area that contains some Ramsey family markers.
    What if the underwear came from the laundry hamper? I know that sounds gross but JBR may have wet herself and either she or her brother looked for underwear and just grabbed from the hamper.
    Just putting an idea out there. I know it sounds wild. lol


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Becba
    What if the underwear came from the laundry hamper? I know that sounds gross but JBR may have wet herself and either she or her brother looked for underwear and just grabbed from the hamper.
    Just putting an idea out there. I know it sounds wild. lol


    Becba,

    Yes, that's another possibility as the source of the mixed foreign male DNA with some Ramsey family markers in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties, but again it's far from the most likely source. The Ramseys, incidentally, didn't have any clothes hampers in the bathrooms. Clothes chutes carried the dirty clothes to the basement.

    When a six-year-old girl has been sexually assaulted and murdered, and male DNA is found in the crotch of her panties, then it must be assumed there's a 99% probability that the killer is the source of that DNA.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote from BlueCrab:
    When a six-year-old girl has been sexually assaulted and murdered, and male DNA is found in the crotch of her panties, then it must be assumed there's a 99% probability that the killer is the source of that DNA

    I agree with you BlueCrab.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pa, USA
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    Quote from BlueCrab:
    When a six-year-old girl has been sexually assaulted and murdered, and male DNA is found in the crotch of her panties, then it must be assumed there's a 99% probability that the killer is the source of that DNA

    I agree with you BlueCrab.
    I don't believe that there is any DNA. I think it's just another pressure "ploy" by LE.
    Also JBR was not sexually assualted. At least not for sexual satisfaction by her murderer.
    She was brutalized, tortured and humiliated.
    This was not a sex crime.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Zman
    This was not a sex crime.

    Zman,

    This was a sex crime.

    JonBenet's vagina was bleeding from the acute injuries inflicted due to the penetration. The killer naively cleaned her up afterward to make it appear as though it wasn't a sex crime, but the autopsy by Dr. John Meyer, and reviewed in person by Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, assistant professor of pediatrics at CU, revealed the injuries to be "consistent with vaginal penetration".

    BlueCrab
    Last edited by BeeBee; 08-06-2005 at 03:38 PM. Reason: sarcasm

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Zman,

    This was a sex crime.

    JonBenet's vagina was bleeding from the acute injuries inflicted due to the penetration. The killer naively cleaned her up afterward to make it appear as though it wasn't a sex crime, but the autopsy by Dr. John Meyer, and reviewed in person by Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, assistant professor of pediatrics at CU, revealed the injuries to be "consistent with vaginal penetration".

    BlueCrab
    Penetration by the paintbrush or penis?

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast