945 users online (187 members and 758 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749

    The undies and DNA

    Okay, let's suppose that JBR's undies had DNA that came from
    a factory worker in southeast Asia.
    Hello, but wouldn't that have been washed out before the first wearing of the undies?? Did I miss something, or were those brand new panties. Sorry if I missed this fact. But for a bedwetter, it would seem that her undies were constantly being washed. How could DNA be left behind from a worker??
    The DNA had to be from a stranger.
    Thoughts????????????

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749

    in addition?????????????????????????

    And, have we ever checked other brand new panties to see

    if foreign DNA was left behind from factory workers before?

    Is this common?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Why has Boulder released the race info on Chase's killer, and not on the killer of Jonbenet? They continue to hide the information that could prove exculpatory to the Ramseys. If that dna is not Asian, a public announcement should be made apologizing for perpetuating the idea that the dna came packaged in her underwear.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    Okay, let's suppose that JBR's undies had DNA that came from
    a factory worker in southeast Asia.
    Hello, but wouldn't that have been washed out before the first wearing of the undies?? Did I miss something, or were those brand new panties. Sorry if I missed this fact. But for a bedwetter, it would seem that her undies were constantly being washed. How could DNA be left behind from a worker??
    The DNA had to be from a stranger.
    Thoughts????????????
    The underwear were not washed before they were worn. So, if DNA managed to be deposited on them (which is a certainty unless the clothing manufacturers wore protective masks and gloves, which is itself drastically unlikely), there is a good chance it would have been survived to yield a partial match. Pop a pair of DNA-contaminated underwear into a plastic bag for transport from Asia to the U.S., expose them to enough heat from the shipping process (weather, cargo-hold temperatures) to degrade the sample, and you have a very simple reason for why DNA can be found in underwear. Everyone who has shopped at a store this past week? You have foreign DNA on your clothing from at least some of the people who touched the items you touched and whose DNA you then transferred to your own clothing.

    It is confounding to think of the people associated with this case who sincerely seem to believe that underwear is sterile when it comes out of the package. Hint: viruses are spread through the same process that spreads DNA. If you have ever caught a cold or flu, you can consider that proof that foreign DNA has made its way onto your body, clothing, and belongings. This is why you are supposed to wash purchased clothing before you wear it, to get rid of foreign DNA.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Why has Boulder released the race info on Chase's killer, and not on the killer of Jonbenet? They continue to hide the information that could prove exculpatory to the Ramseys. If that dna is not Asian, a public announcement should be made apologizing for perpetuating the idea that the dna came packaged in her underwear.
    The information is not "hidden". The DNA has already excluded the Ramseys; however the DNA does not come from the killer. It comes from any number of sources.

    This is not a DNA case
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    The information is not "hidden". The DNA has already excluded the Ramseys; however the DNA does not come from the killer. It comes from any number of sources.

    This is not a DNA case
    I do believe this is not a dna case, clearly because they have not yet located the match. When they do, it will be a dna case.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    The DNA has already excluded the Ramseys
    Technically, it may not have even done that. The initial report states that if the DNA came from one person, the Ramseys are excluded. But the logical and scientific inference to make is that if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people, the Ramseys are not excluded. Logic would suggest that this means the markers have things in common with several Ramsey family members, but all of the markers do not appear in an individual Ramsey sample.

    Here is a little illustration. Suppose you find beads from some unknown number of charm bracelets on the ground. The beads used to form the first name of one or more people, with each letter appearing on a separate bead. If you find a bead with the letter O on it, you may be looking at a bracelet that belonged to John. If you find a bead with an A on it, the bracelet might have belonged to Patsy. Now, suppose you find two beads, an A and an O. If the beads came from one bracelet, it could not belong to either John or Patsy. But if the beads came from two bracelets, the beads could belong to both of them.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by why_nutt
    Technically, it may not have even done that. The initial report states that if the DNA came from one person, the Ramseys are excluded. But the logical and scientific inference to make is that if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people, the Ramseys are not excluded. Logic would suggest that this means the markers have things in common with several Ramsey family members, but all of the markers do not appear in an individual Ramsey sample.

    Here is a little illustration. Suppose you find beads from some unknown number of charm bracelets on the ground. The beads used to form the first name of one or more people, with each letter appearing on a separate bead. If you find a bead with the letter O on it, you may be looking at a bracelet that belonged to John. If you find a bead with an A on it, the bracelet might have belonged to Patsy. Now, suppose you find two beads, an A and an O. If the beads came from one bracelet, it could not belong to either John or Patsy. But if the beads came from two bracelets, the beads could belong to both of them.
    That was a wonderfully clear analogy! I don't believe I have ever heard it explained better!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ
    That was a wonderfully clear analogy! I don't believe I have ever heard it explained better!
    Keep it in mind whenever anyone says "The Ramseys are excluded." It is a conditional exclusion, and the person stating it as proof positive is obligated to explain why the CBI made it conditional if it was absolute proof.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Yes, WhyNutt is correct. It was an excellent analogy.

    If it is conditional, then at this point, nobody is excluded

    Thanks for the clarification WhyNutt. You are as always, the best
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Key words..."in the initial report"!!
    Years later, a good "enough" to put in codis sample was collected off of a previously ignored area of her clothing and it was from a SINGLE source. That sample was not mixed!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Key words..."in the initial report"!!
    Years later, a good "enough" to put in codis sample was collected off of a previously ignored area of her clothing and it was from a SINGLE source. That sample was not mixed!
    Actually, that has never been stated as bluntly as that. All we have heard, as with the initial report, is that more markers were found. But if, instead of two from one person and one from another, as could have been the case at first, they now have five from one person and five from another, or nine from one person and one from another, or two from one person, five from a second person, and three from a third person, you would still have ten markers, and you would also still have an inability to potentially rule out the Ramseys as contributors, or for that matter the possibility of innocent transfer during the process of manufacturing and distributing the underwear. At least Smit and Mary Keenan-Lacy give lip service to not having ruled out the Ramseys, and it could be that even one marker in common with them prevents them from being able to do that.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,189
    I can't seem to remember all the things that have been said about dna. Was dna under JonBenet's fingernails the same as that found on the panties?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by txsvicki
    I can't seem to remember all the things that have been said about dna. Was dna under JonBenet's fingernails the same as that found on the panties?
    Say this after me: Overlap is not matching.

    One marker under a nail from one hand was found that had the same alleles as an equivalent marker from the underwear. Two markers from JonBenet's other hand were found to have the same alleles as two equivalent markers from the underwear. (In other words, the letter A was found on JonBenet's left hand, the letters A and B were found on her right hand, and the letters A, B, and C were found in the underwear.)

    Now, let us use this example. You have red hair. I have red hair. At the crime scene, DNA is found under the victim's left hand nails, and that DNA belongs to someone with red hair. Does that mean you and I are both the same person and the person who committed the crime, because our hair is red like that found in the DNA at the crime scene? You and I would both say no, because we know we did not do it. The DNA is then examined and found to have markers from a sample under the victim's right hand belonging to someone with red hair and freckles. You have red hair and freckles, but I have red hair and no freckles. This establishes that if our DNA was compared to the crime scene DNA from the right hand, I am exempt, but you are not yet. Then, another DNA sample from the victim's underwear is examined, and it reveals the killer had red hair, freckles, and violet eyes. You have red hair and freckles, but green eyes. You are now eliminated. But there are diehard theorists out there who will insist that you and I are the same person, and that we (as this theoretical single person) killed the victim, because the killer had red hair and we have red hair.

    See? This is what intruder theorists hang part of their theory on. The just-one marker from one of JonBenet's hands that could be found overlapped the just-two markers from JonBenet's other hand. But like your red hair and mine overlap as part of our visual appearance, it does not mean that our red hair belongs to just one person. This is why criminal investigation requires 13 markers, people. Many people have individual markers in common with any DNA sample, but it becomes very unlikely that all 13 markers will overlap and therefore count as a match.

    And, of course, the whole ballgame gets complicated when there is not even any certainty that the markers found belong to just one person. Introduce contamination and innocent transfer to the mix, and what you have is the famous "not a DNA case."
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    230

    Dna

    If the killer wore gloves could the new panties have minute or one marker of cross contamination from wherever the gloves were worn - over a period of days in the winter? The outside of gloves pick up an endless supply of minute DNA I would imagine...

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY IL - Darrell Stewart for child pornography, Smithboro, 2011
    By Missizzy in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2012, 12:05 PM
  2. New men's undies 'accentuate the positive'
    By LinasK in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 08:33 PM
  3. Calif. inmates to get orange undies
    By mysteriew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-28-2005, 12:20 PM