692 users online (89 members and 603 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    The Bloodstain - misinformation?

    YFL has started yet another BORG thread - dispelling misinformation. However, on it, she posted that the DNA is from the perp because it was mixed with the blood - and this indicates that they were deposited at the same time.

    I have tried to find information about how scientists extract dried blood from garments but I can only find out how they collect the dried bloodstains for safe storage. However, I am certai that I have seen scientists on tv wetting the dried blood with some solution to extract it. Does anyone know about this?

    Anyway, the point I am making is that if I were to spill salt water on some cloth and allow it to dry, and then spill fruitjuice on the same cloth and let it dry... there would be no way of telling which had been spilled first - or even if there was salt IN the fruit juice.

    I think the fact that the foreign DNA is degraded when JonBenet's was not, is indicative of them NOT being placed in her underwear at the same time. The fact that they were mixed does NOT necessarily mean they were placed there at the same time.
    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
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    I think the fact that the foreign DNA is degraded when JonBenet's was not, is indicative of them NOT being placed in her underwear at the same time. The fact that they were mixed does NOT necessarily mean they were placed there at the same time.
    I have rarely seen as thick-headed a response as that which comes from those who, when confronted with the fact that DNA extraction involves mixing materials together, still insist that different sources of DNA from JonBenet's underwear must have been deposited at the same time because only under those circumstances would a mixture have resulted. But I suppose yet another link to yet another web site is in order. At least I can sleep at night knowing that this post will not be carried Over Yonder, as it represents inconvenient facts.

    http://library.thinkquest.org/19037/dna_extraction.html

    Cut up a small amount of the cell source.

    Add it into a blender and fill it with enough warm salty water to cover it (use several pinches of salt--you may experiment with what works best).

    Blend for 5-10 seconds, but don’t totally liquefy. Pour through the strainer into a clear glass, filling about half full.


    ...

    2. What does the blender do? (help break down the cell walls)

    3. When you mix the blended cell source with the soap, what is happening? (In the experiment, the enzymes in the soap are breaking down the lipid molecules of the cell and nuclear membranes, releasing the contents of the cell, including the DNA. These enzymes in the soap are what break down grease while washing dishes.)


    Edited to add:

    Toth, perhaps you can talk some sense into your compatriots. Convince them that nobody, CBI, Cellmark, anyone, looked at the unprocessed swatch of fabric from JonBenet's underwear, saw a cell, said to themselves, "Ah, that is a cell which does not belong to JonBenet, it is clearly underneath this other cell which is definitely from JonBenet, so even before we have run DNA tests to verify who belongs to each cell, we can Just Tell, and will extract the individual cells from the fabric at different times so we can run the tests separately and thus confirm that Cell A is from a source foreign to JonBenet and Cell B is from JonBenet herself."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    Jayelles, here's an excerpt from an FBI website pertaining to DNA collection procedures. I found the site by typing dna +blood +dried +water into my search engine. I got quite a few results. (I included water in the key words because I saw a forensic TV show in which dried blood was collected onto a cotton swab moistened with water.)

    Absorb suspected dried blood onto a clean cotton cloth or swab moistened with distilled water. Leave a portion of the cloth or swab unstained as a control. Air-dry the cloth or swab and pack in clean paper or an envelope with sealed corners. Do not use plastic containers.

    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/handbook/intro6.htm

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    The panties were new from a package - supposedly opened that night and put on JonBenet. So dated DNA is harder to explain.

    I'm not so sure I "buy into" the Asian Factory Worker explanation.

    Degraded DNA must have been "degraded' before transfer...and eventual mixture w/the blood.
    IMO -

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    More links about DNA extraction and results obtained when more than one person has contributed to the sample:

    http://www.dnadiagnosticsinc.com/Art...wsletters.html

    However, a major point of controversy often lies in the interpretation of the DNA test results when samples contain material or DNA from more than one person. For a large variety of crimes, such as rape, the evidentiary samples will contain DNA from more than one contributor. Consequently, the evaluation of such mixtures is complex and must be interpreted carefully. For example, DNA markers (or fragments) from a sample containing a mixture originating from two individuals can be separated into major and minor components. However, even then a mixture can only be identified if the DNA markers of the minor component are above the "background noise." Moreover, a mixture may not always be evident by the presence of multiple bands (i.e., STR analysis) where the contributors actually share markers at a particular site on the DNA molecule. Fortunately, a case will usually comprise several stains or evidentiary samples which will reveal only one DNA contributor. These analyses, when compared to the other mixed and known samples in a case, may eliminate anyambiguities.

    Several approaches have been used to assess the significance of an inclusion or match when samples containing DNA from more than one source have been detected in evidentiary samples. In STR analysis, one method involves the assignment of genotypes based upon peak height ratios, followed by the standard probability calculations. A recent inter-laboratory mixture study, evaluating the reliability of "peak heights ratios" generated by STR analyses, demonstrated the difficulties of determining alleles in mixtures 4. All participants were able to identify the alleles of the mixtures with the exception of some minor peaks. One laboratory reported a "stutter" (i.e., an artifact) as an allele, while two laboratories did not attempt to distinguish the genotypes of the contributors of the mixtures. The results demonstrated that the alleles were identified from the vast majority of the mixtures tested; however, the ability to determine the individual components of the mixture depended on the laboratory.

    In a separate mixture study, sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, forty-five local, state, federal and commercial forensic laboratories were requested to specify all contributors in each sample mixture, provide STR profiles, and estimate the amount of DNA in the samples as well as the amount of recoverable DNA per sample 5. No participant in the study mistyped the single contributor sample. However, many laboratories did not attempt to fully type the contributors profile or they provided incorrect genotype assignments. The inability to correctly assign the proper genotype to a contributor was attributed to multiple shared alleles. Further investigations will clarify these results.


    Ooo, here is a good one. Ramsey defenders will not like to hear this:

    http://bioforensics.com/articles/DNA...ies%20memo.pdf

    Further studies by van Oorschot et al (1998) to illustrate that swabs of the outside of gloves worn while folding an object that had been frequently touched (such as door handles and used gloves that had been turned inside out) revealed a genetic profile that matched that obtained from the swabs of the fondled objects.”

    Could some of the results attributed to the intruder be JonBenet's own DNA?

    http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/7928.html

    Working from the autoradiographs for the remaining three sites tested, Dr. Cotton concluded that the vaginal swab sample itself contained DNA from more than one person (referred to as a "mixed sample"). A swab sample taken from a rape victim will initially contain some cells from the victim herself. The process by which a laboratory attempts to separate the DNA of the victim from that of the contributor of any semen is not always successful in completely separating the two. As a result, the sample portion referred to as the "male fraction" may still contain some of the victim's DNA. Thus, when DNA analysis reveals that DNA from more than one person is in the "male fraction" of a sample taken from a sexual assault victim, that result may be due to a small amount of the victim's own DNA remaining in the sample following less than successful extraction techniques.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Ivy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy
    Jayelles, here's an excerpt from an FBI website pertaining to DNA collection procedures. I found the site by typing dna +blood +dried +water into my search engine. I got quite a few results. (I included water in the key words because I saw a forensic TV show in which dried blood was collected onto a cotton swab moistened with water.)

    Absorb suspected dried blood onto a clean cotton cloth or swab moistened with distilled water. Leave a portion of the cloth or swab unstained as a control. Air-dry the cloth or swab and pack in clean paper or an envelope with sealed corners. Do not use plastic containers.

    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/handbook/intro6.htm
    Thanks, but this appears to be yet another website which expains how to COLLECT the blood sample for analysis. I was looking for something that explained how it was actually analysed.

    It does confirm my thoughts that dried blood needs to be rehydrated for analysis.
    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Why_Nut

    Thanks for those. Margoo wouldn't like to think of all that DNA transferring itself onto the scientist's glove LOL
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    the DNA is from the perp because it was mixed with the blood - and this indicates that they were deposited at the same time.
    Jayelles, you shouldn't concern yourself with the Skank's propaganda. Most people are smart enough to know she's 99.9% bull chit when it comes to hir case facts. The Skank's DNA facts are about as accurate as hir claim a couple years ago that the pineapple was lemon rind.

    The truth is there is is no way of telling if DNA is mixed. Let's remember the blood spot was dried and had to be re-wet in order to be tested. That process would have mixed any genetic material present.

    And let's not forget that JBR urinated in those panties which would have caused different materials to mix even if they were deposited at different times.

    JMO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    13,815
    Jayelle's, would you source your claim that the male DNA is "degraded"? Thanks.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    475

    How about this...

    A particular idea has been bouncing around in my head for some time. I just never added it all up into a complete thought, I suppose, lol .

    Anyway, here it is:

    Ok, Patsy took some sort of painting class, correct? Well, first of all, I am not sure if she carried the paintbrush involved in the crime to her class or not. But I am sure LE knows.

    I do know that artists, on occasion, will put their paintbrush in their mouths when they are thinking, etc. It is like the habit of putting a pen in your mouth.

    Well, is there any possibility that Patsy shared this paintbrush with anyone at her art class? Or, might the brush actually belong to someone else from her class?

    If either scenario is true, then there is a great possibility that someone, other than a Ramsey, might have deposited his/her DNA through saliva or skin cells, onto the paintbrush.

    Naturally, if JBR was 'molested' with the end of the paintbursh, then the blood that came from little JB would certainly contain some DNA from whoever might have used Patsy's brush! Correct?

    Of course, the DNA would be degraded since it would be old. I think.
    The above is my opinion only based on published accounts of the case.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfmarsGirl
    A particular idea has been bouncing around in my head for some time. I just never added it all up into a complete thought, I suppose, lol .

    Anyway, here it is:

    Ok, Patsy took some sort of painting class, correct? Well, first of all, I am not sure if she carried the paintbrush involved in the crime to her class or not. But I am sure LE knows.

    I do know that artists, on occasion, will put their paintbrush in their mouths when they are thinking, etc. It is like the habit of putting a pen in your mouth.

    Well, is there any possibility that Patsy shared. this paintbrush with anyone at her art class? Or, might the brush actually be.long to someone else from her class?

    If either scenario is true, then there is a great possibility that someone, other than a Ramsey, might have deposited his/her DNA through saliva or skin cells, onto the paintbrush.

    Naturally, if JBR was 'molested' with the end of the paintbursh, then the blood that came from little JB would certainly contain some DNA from whoever might have used Patsy's brush! Correct?

    Of course, the DNA would be degraded since it would be old. I think.


    JonBenet would have been molested by the tip of the paint brush handle (the part that would have contained the DNA from the person who borrowed the brush) but the tip had been broken off and is missing.

    JMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Lp

    Quote Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
    Jayelle's, would you source your claim that the male DNA is "degraded"? Thanks.
    LP, I'm absolutely stumped for words. Are you serious?

    Do you have another way of describing a DNA profile which is fragmented and has only 9 markers and which scientists have speculated may even have come from more than one person?

    Do a Google search under 'degraded DNA' and you will find a vast multitude of websites which will explain to you how when DNA degrades, it breaks down, becomes fragmented and the more fragmented it becomes, the harder it becomes to piece it together - meaning that only a partial profile can be obtained. Just like the foreign male DNA in the Ramsey case.

    Is this a trick question or something?
    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

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    91
    Recommended reading material for yonder forum:

    Blood Analysis

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

    Forensic DNA Typing: Biology and Technology Behind STR Markers

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books