937 users online (175 members and 762 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 267
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741

    Question

    Defenders of the Ramsey have made much effort to convince the rest of us that the DNA from JBR is MALE AND NON RAMSEY.

    In 1998 or 1999, the authorities came to take a sample of DNA from ARIANA PUGH?

    What is the explanation for this? Since some are emphatic that this is male, non Ramsey DNA without any legitimate source to back that up, what is the explanation for taking FEMALE DNA samples?
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    DNA-x

    As I posted on another thread, the taking of DNA from Ariana Pugh ties in with the discovery and testing of DNA-x.

    Beckner said:-

    Here Beckner is talking about Chris Wolf's DNA

    21 Q Was it compared to DNAX?
    22 A The lab would have to answer that.
    23 Q Well, would you have expected it to be?
    24 A Not necessarily.
    25 Q Why?


    128

    1 A Well, if -- hypothetically?
    2 MR. MILLER: No, not hypothetically.
    3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I would rather you --
    4 A I don't know how to answer it without
    5 giving away information.
    I hypothesise that DNA-x was female and that is why it wasn't necessary to test Wolf's DNA.

    Ariana Pugh's DNA sample was taken in January 1999.
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Thanks Jayelles,

    What is the explanation for this a la Lin Wood, Ramsey defenders, etc? Anyone know?
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    DNA-x, whether male or female, may be further narrowed down to ethnic ancestry by the new DNA Witness analysis developed in 2003 (please refer to the Susanna Chase thread).

    JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    I hypothesise that DNA-x was female and that is why it wasn't necessary to test Wolf's DNA.

    Ariana Pugh's DNA sample was taken in January 1999.
    And we have this from the December 4th, 1998 Rocky Mountain News:

    Police will collect DNA samples and palm prints from five relatives of JonBenet Ramsey in the Atlanta area next week.

    ...

    Pam Paugh, JonBenet's aunt, said she is among the five relatives who will provide mouth swabs and palm prints. She said the other four are Don and Nedra Paugh, JonBenet's maternal grandparents, Polly Paugh Davis, and Polly's husband, Grant Davis.

    ...

    Pam Paugh said it was her understanding that the DNA evidence, which will be compared to the DNA from the five relatives, "is not the DNA found under her fingernails."


    So if the DNA in the panties has been deemed by the Ramsey defense to be the same DNA as under JonBenet's nails, and the DNA taken from the Paugh relatives was not to be compared to the nail DNA, then, as history has shown, the likelihood is large that DNA-x was the comparison standard, and perhaps was itself degraded in a way which prevented its gender from being known, requiring both male and female DNA samples to be taken, with Arianna Pugh caught up in the renewed net of sample-taking.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    I don't know that they took a sample from Ariana Pugh but if they did it might be because they were unable to get a sample from her father or because they feel it is remotely possible that more than one intruder was present that night.
    It is also possible that certain items found in the home such as the rope or the paper sack were swabbed and yielded dna which might or might not have been from the intruder.

    Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    DNA-x, whether male or female, may be further narrowed down to ethnic ancestry by the new DNA Witness analysis developed in 2003 (please refer to the Susanna Chase thread).

    JMO
    There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Why_Nut

    Thank you for posting that.

    (Drat.)
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Re DNA Witness analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by why_nutt
    There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?
    IMO the example you gave would considerably narrow down the donor of that DNA to very few people and perhaps down to only one suspect, depending on the circumstances of the case.

    This DNA Witness thing may become BIG.

    JMO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    IMO the example you gave would considerably narrow down the donor of that DNA to very few people and perhaps down to only one suspect, depending on the circumstances of the case.

    This DNA Witness thing may become BIG.

    JMO
    With a good, clean, strong DNA sample, perhaps. Have you looked at the site for DNAPrint? They require two thousand markers in a sample to conduct what they call pan-genome coverage. The Chase case is not known to have had problems with degraded samples, just with no matches to be found in the information they had. But if the Ramsey case can barely eke out 10 markers, well, you can see why the Ramsey case may not benefit from this particular magic bullet.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Perhaps the reason Beckner alluded to the fact that Chris Wolf's DNA would not have to be compared to DNA-x had nothing to do with gender.

    For instance, maybe the GJ had indeed solved the crime in 1999 and there were children involved. But DNA evidence and other evidence existed that someone, an unknown but older accomplice, had slipped between the cracks and, because of known circumstances, that unknown accomplice could NOT have been Chris Wolf.

    JMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    13,815
    The first explanation for foreign DNA being in JonBenét's panties was that she had "exchanged panties" with a playmate. Since the underwear was feminine, that would indicate a girl playmate. Girl playmates' parents were contacted for DNA samples.

    I suppose the male dna was hoped to be innocent parent or SO dna in the playmate's panties.

    None of that ever made sense to me.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Toth
    I don't know that they took a sample from Ariana Pugh but if they did it might be because they were unable to get a sample from her father or because they feel it is remotely possible that more than one intruder was present that night.
    It is also possible that certain items found in the home such as the rope or the paper sack were swabbed and yielded dna which might or might not have been from the intruder.

    Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna.
    Why wouldn't they get a sample from Merv? The Pughs were more cooperative than the Ramseys and they didn't even have lawyers, knowing full well that they were thrown under that bus. As drunk as you like to paint Merv, there was never an instance where he was too out of it to speak to the investigators, something that cannot be said about the parents who had, or should I say should have had the most motivation to speak to investigators and CHOSE not to.

    As for your last statement, we DONT know that yet. What if it turns out to be a Ramsey? I realize of course that the RST is not yet willing to accept the palm print and hair belonging to Melinda and Patsy respectively as there is no official source. Fair enough. But along those lines of thinking, we also do not know for sure if the DNA is Ramsey or non Ramsey.

    With all due respect Toth, your word isn't enough to make it fact.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
    The first explanation for foreign DNA being in JonBenét's panties was that she had "exchanged panties" with a playmate. Since the underwear was feminine, that would indicate a girl playmate. Girl playmates' parents were contacted for DNA samples.

    I suppose the male dna was hoped to be innocent parent or SO dna in the playmate's panties.

    None of that ever made sense to me.
    What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.
    Do you not mean 12 hours or so? - which is even more puzzling...
    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

Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast