DNA Facts???

Barbara · Jan 4, 2004

Do we know OFFICIALLY, FACTUAL INFORMATION FROM EXPERTS.....

Was Burke's DNA taken and tested?
Were the results ever released?
Is it a fact that it doesn't "match" the Ramseys?
Is it a fact that the sample taken from her panties match those under her nails?
Who has submitted DNA to LE?

I'm looking for "official" answers, not theories, not statements from Lin Wood, *******, the Ramseys, Keenan. I'm looking for "science" answers that have been made public by EXPERTS.

Are there any real FACTS pertaining to this latest DNA issue?

Cherokee · Jan 4, 2004

Barbara said:
Do we know OFFICIALLY, FACTUAL INFORMATION FROM EXPERTS.....

Is it a fact that the sample taken from her panties match those under her nails?

Barbara, I asked this same question over six months ago, and got no answers. I hope someone can answer the question with documented evidence.

Click to expand...

BlueCrab · Jan 4, 2004

Barbara said:
Do we know OFFICIALLY, FACTUAL INFORMATION FROM EXPERTS.....

Was Burke's DNA taken and tested?
Were the results ever released?

PMPTpb, pg 63:

"Hofstrom then called Michael Bynum, who confirmed that although John and Patsy refused interviews at this time, the entire family -- including Burke, John Andrew, and Melinda -- would give blood, hair, fingerprint, and handwriting samples."

I have seen nothing official about the results of any of Burke's tests -- only statements from the Ramsey camp denying Burke's involvement and trickily-worded obfuscated statements from the D.A.'s office implying Burke was cleared but not coming right out and saying so.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Toth · Jan 4, 2004

Barbara said:
Do we know OFFICIALLY, FACTUAL INFORMATION FROM EXPERTS.....
I'm looking for "official" answers, I'm looking for "science" answers that have been made public by EXPERTS.
Are there any real FACTS pertaining to this latest DNA issue?

Good luck!!
but please don't hold your breath while waiting for any of those officials or experts to respond.

Consider how reticent DA-Hunter was to issue a statement that 'Burke was never a suspect' even though it is obvious that DA-Hunter in fact never considered Burke to be a suspect.

Were Burke's test results released? No. Not in the sense you mean of "ACGT" or anything like that. Nor would it be.

You don't like hearing Lin Wood saying that the dna is that of a "Non-Ramsey male", so you are desperately trying to find some 'evidence' or 'lack of evidence' that will make things better for you in some expert's public statements. Ain't gonna happen.

Nehemiah · Jan 4, 2004

Toth said:
Were Burke's test results released? No. Not in the sense you mean of "ACGT" or anything like that. Nor would it be.

What does this mean?

Imon128 · Jan 4, 2004

Lin Wood is in no position to make determining calls about the DNA. He's no pathologist, he's supposed to NOT be inside Keenan's investigation, and he represents John and Patsy in libel suits. JMO

sissi · Jan 4, 2004

Often the true sources of information are uncovered in the courts. I am hoping Fox doesn't settle, (which is ridiculous of me of course they will) because in the court process the sources,legal,law enforcement,scientists,can be uncovered. It would not serve Fox well to pursue this, I just hope the Ramseys will push them and others like them to the wall! Make Fox produce their sources for misinformation! Does anyone really believe the Ramseys (with wood) are taking a frivolous suit to court,nope,they have their ducks in a row this time,and can back them.

This reminds me of that 911 call,never did anyone at aerospace say that burkes voice was on it,yet over and over it's given as the source. Aerospace enhanced the tape,the BPD were allowed the interpretation.

IMO JMO

Barbara · Jan 4, 2004

Toth said:
Good luck!!
but please don't hold your breath while waiting for any of those officials or experts to respond.

Consider how reticent DA-Hunter was to issue a statement that 'Burke was never a suspect' even though it is obvious that DA-Hunter in fact never considered Burke to be a suspect.

Were Burke's test results released? No. Not in the sense you mean of "ACGT" or anything like that. Nor would it be.

You don't like hearing Lin Wood saying that the dna is that of a "Non-Ramsey male", so you are desperately trying to find some 'evidence' or 'lack of evidence' that will make things better for you in some expert's public statements. Ain't gonna happen.

No, I don't like Lin Wood speaking of the DNA at all, since he is an ATTORNEY, not a pathologist or professional of anything scientific. So what you are saying in your post of "good luck" and "desperately trying to find some evidence" or "lack of evidence" to make things better for ME, is also saying that everything we speak of regarding DNA is just speculation. We don't know for sure if the Ramseys are excluded, included, or if anyone else is either.

Lin has lied before at various times, so there is no reason to believe what he says is credible, especially regarding scientific evidence.

Lin also stated that the DNA is likely saliva. Are we to believe that without anyone backing that statement up?

Shylock · Jan 4, 2004

sissi said:
This reminds me of that 911 call,never did anyone at aerospace say that burkes voice was on it,yet over and over it's given as the source. Aerospace enhanced the tape,the BPD were allowed the interpretation.

That's a pretty silly comment, Sissi. Just HOW would you expect Aerospace to know how Burke or any other Ramsey family members sounded? The people at Aerospace would't know Burke's voice from any other kid on the planet.

The best Aerospace could have done was say there appears to be a third voice on the tape that might be the voice of a child or possibly a high-pitched female.
That's the same thing Steve Thomas said, there's a third voice, if it's not Burke, then who is it?

Shylock · Jan 4, 2004

Toth said:
You don't like hearing Lin Wood saying that the dna is that of a "Non-Ramsey male", so you are desperately trying to find some 'evidence' or 'lack of evidence' that will make things better for you in some expert's public statements. Ain't gonna happen.

Sorry Toth, but it's already "happened", and it's time you wake up and smell the coffee. Your beloved "DNA babble" hasn't cleared the Ramseys, has it? They are still the NUMBER-ONE suspects, aren't they. That should give you a real clue on how important this DNA baloney is to this case.

Ivy · Jan 4, 2004

Nehemia... I guess what Toth meant was that we'll never see the actual readout of the DNA sample sent to the FBI. ATGC stands for the four nucleic acid bases in DNA. A=adenine, T=thiamine, G-guanine, and C=cytosine.

K777angel · Jan 4, 2004

The only expert on the case who HAS seen the testing results and knows what he is talking about and has commented publicy (that I am aware of) - is Dr. Henry Lee.
He has stated publicly that the Ramsey case "is NOT a DNA case."
Much ado about nothing. So what a perfect area then for the Ramsey CIVIL lawyer to trump up into a public "something" because there is no one who desires to come forward and rebutt him. Yet.
Law enforcement does not make a habit of responding to every little question or PR stunt their #1 suspects CIVIL lawyer challenges them with in public.
Why would they?
They have said over and over and over (rightfully so) that they will NOT try this case in the court of public opinion. Naturally a suspects CIVIL attorney will take advantage of that knowing that law enforcement - who knows the REAL facts and evidence in the case - will responsibly almost never respond
and that the CIVIL attorney will sue anyone else who knows there current PR stunt is hogwash.

When it comes down to it, it does not really matter what the public "thinks" about a case. Curious as we are. The real test is in the courtroom where the facts and evidence can be laid out and properly judged by a judge and jury.
Since this case looks like it will never reach that point - the Ramseys feel
"safe" in playing with the public's opinion of them. They don't have to cough up the FACTS and evidence to prove what they claim.

There could be, and probably is, alot of evidence in this case we have never heard about.
The truth of the matter is - it must not shine well on the Ramseys as they to this day have NEVER been cleared of this crime and remain the #1 suspects.
Regardless of Wood's pathetic attempts to manipulate federal judges with carefully selected presentations of "facts" in the case.
I was always taught that omitting the truth or part of it is just as wrong and sinful as claiming an untruth.

sissi · Jan 4, 2004

I'm making silly comments?

shylock..That's a pretty silly comment, Sissi. Just HOW would you expect Aerospace to know how Burke or any other Ramsey family members sounded? The people at Aerospace would't know Burke's voice from any other kid on the planet.

The best Aerospace could have done was say there appears to be a third voice on the tape that might be the voice of a child or possibly a high-pitched female.

Would you please give me a source that states Aerospace commented in ANY fashion
on the contents of that tape.
IMO JMO

Barbara · Jan 4, 2004

sissi said:
I'm making silly comments?

shylock..That's a pretty silly comment, Sissi. Just HOW would you expect Aerospace to know how Burke or any other Ramsey family members sounded? The people at Aerospace would't know Burke's voice from any other kid on the planet.

The best Aerospace could have done was say there appears to be a third voice on the tape that might be the voice of a child or possibly a high-pitched female.

Would you please give me a source that states Aerospace commented in ANY fashion
on the contents of that tape.
IMO JMO

This is a thread about DNA. The 911 call is an entirely different subject

Toth · Jan 4, 2004

I would tend to discount Opinionated Lee-san's "this is not a dna case" nonsense. He keeps spouting off about 'if you find dna on a crimescene's sidewalk someone may have spit on that spot previously'. I don't know if he thinks someone came along and spat under her fingernails and into her panties or not. He has not really made any statements about the case that make sense.

Maxi · Jan 4, 2004

Most of the "facts" we have to work with are second or third hand. It would be pretty unprofessional for Aerospace or the BDI or the FBI to release information on an open case. We each have to decide how much weight we give our sources.

sissi · Jan 4, 2004

Maxi said:
Most of the "facts" we have to work with are second or third hand. It would be pretty unprofessional for Aerospace or the BDI or the FBI to release information on an open case. We each have to decide how much weight we give our sources.

Exactly Maxi, there isn't a fact available that isn't ,as you said,second or third hand. Good point ,as well,it is up for us to decide how much weight we give the sources.

Toth · Jan 4, 2004

K777angel said:
Dr. Lee IS the source. He doesn't need to cite one.

Quite the contrary. I think Lee should properly be called upon to show why he is starting out with such an absurd and unlikely scenario rather than accepting that dna found in a rape victim's panties is either hers or her attackers and that dna found under a rape victims fingernails is either hers or her attackers.

tipper · Jan 4, 2004

K777angel said:
The only expert on the case who HAS seen the testing results and knows what he is talking about and has commented publicy (that I am aware of) - is Dr. Henry Lee.
He has stated publicly that the Ramsey case "is NOT a DNA case."
Much ado about nothing. So what a perfect area then for the Ramsey CIVIL lawyer to trump up into a public "something" because there is no one who desires to come forward and rebutt him.
...

I was always taught that omitting the truth or part of it is just as wrong and sinful as claiming an untruth.

Did Lee say that before or after the DNAX was found? I wonder if his current position has changed.

I agree with your last statement. It's one of the things I found most bothersome about ST's book.

K777angel · Jan 4, 2004

Toth said:
Quite the contrary. I think Lee should properly be called upon to show why he is starting out with such an absurd and unlikely scenario rather than accepting that dna found in a rape victim's panties is either hers or her attackers and that dna found under a rape victims fingernails is either hers or her attackers.

What in the world are you talking about Toth?
WHAT "rape" victim? JonBenet was NOT raped. Far from it.

And what "scenario" are you claiming Dr. Lee is suggesting?
I made no reference to any "scenario" of the crime. Dr. Lee stated simply that the facts in this case show it is NOT a DNA case. HE is the expert.
HE has seen the evidence and results.
You have no say in this. Just some anonymous citizen with a strong opinion on a murder case you read about.
Who are YOU to question a most respected criminal forensic expert who has absolutely no personal involvement with this family or motivation other than the cold hard scientific facts.
Why do YOU have so much personal emotion in this case? Maybe Toth should
"properly be called upon to show why he is starting out with such an absurb and unlikely scenario......"

DNA Facts???

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Inactive

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

Inactive

Member

Former Member

New Member

Inactive

Maxi

Guest

Former Member

Inactive

Former Member

Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics