776 users online (82 members and 694 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475

    "New DNA" just another red herring

    Here is why the “new” DNA evidence is just another red herring.
    The microscopic DNA residue that was found under JBR’s fingernails was “degraded” plus it was so minute that they could not even get a full code string of markers from it.
    The DNA in her panties that was mixed with her own blood was the same, so minute that it couldn’t give a full set of markers.

    Now the “new” touch DNA is the same…not a full set of markers. Now, from what I understand that without the full set of markers you cannot determine an exact match for where those markers fall into the entire coding sequence of the DNA strand.

    So we have some minute trace of DNA with a few markers that match. But where in the genome coding sequence do they fall? 500 people could have several of the exact same markers, but if they don’t fall in the same sequence in the entire strand…well you get the idea. They don't match.

    Also Mary Lacy is forgetting some crucial information. Patsy dressed JB in those long johns and not only that she wore them all that afternoon.

    Jon Benet received many gifts that year, among them a My Twinn doll and a new bike.
    Plus they were at the Whites for dinner with the girls (Daphne and JB) playing on the FLOOR at the Whites.

    It is entirely possible that JB got that DNA under her nails from playing with anything that day. She could even have gotten it off the banister of either the front or spiral staircase! Remember the Ramsey’s opened their home for those Christmas “tours” where anyone could walk in and walk through the home so anyone who went through the house could have deposited his DNA on the banister.

    Or perhaps the person who put JB’s bike together for her left his DNA and she got it from there…
    Or it could have been anyone else who handled any of the presents that were put into packages (think factory worker) for the kids that year.

    Then JB goes to the bathroom, pulls down the long johns dislodging some of the skin cells onto them, then pulls down her panties and the same thing happens, then when she’s assaulted her blood drops onto the panties trapping the microscopic skin cell fragments into it. It’s called cross contamination.

    The plain and simple fact is that there is no way to prove that this very microscopic DNA belongs to the killer at all.

    Why is this microscopic DNA not found on the blanket she was wrapped in, or on the Barbie nightgown (her favorite) that was near her when she was found?

    Mary Lacy should be ashamed of herself for providing yet another lame excuse to try and exonerate the Ramsey’s. But all she has done is make her self and her department the same laughing stock she was a year ago when she tried to pass off JMK as the killer…

    MOO

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    Thanks for taking the time to make all those points. I agree with Nedthan, where are all the experts and why aren't we hearing them say these very same things on TV? Yesterday huge news today no news, argh.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,043
    Quote Originally Posted by jubie View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to make all those points. I agree with Nedthan, where are all the experts and why aren't we hearing them say these very same things on TV? Yesterday huge news today no news, argh.
    They did comment on Nancy Grace. This DNA called " touch DNA" contains a small fragment of DNA material. Not enough to be sequenced. It cannot be identified, IOW.
    Since 100% of all human DNA matches on MOST alelles, I am not surprised that they could slide by and say that the DNA " matches" the DNA found in JBR's panties. Yeah, if you only have 1-2 loci to test, they could very well match.

    Another thing- " Touch DNA" is not reliable and cannot be used in a court of law as scientific or any other type of evidence!! Because it is incidental DNA.

    I am a firm believer in scientific methods to advance criminology, but NOT VOODOO SCIENCE!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by SeekingJana

    I am a firm believer in scientific methods to advance criminology, but NOT VOODOO SCIENCE!!
    Now you stop that!!! You almost made me spit my tea on my brand new monitor and keyboard!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by SeekingJana View Post
    They did comment on Nancy Grace. This DNA called " touch DNA" contains a small fragment of DNA material. Not enough to be sequenced. It cannot be identified, IOW.
    Since 100% of all human DNA matches on MOST alelles, I am not surprised that they could slide by and say that the DNA " matches" the DNA found in JBR's panties. Yeah, if you only have 1-2 loci to test, they could very well match.

    Another thing- " Touch DNA" is not reliable and cannot be used in a court of law as scientific or any other type of evidence!! Because it is incidental DNA.

    I am a firm believer in scientific methods to advance criminology, but NOT VOODOO SCIENCE!!

    HA ha ha ha! I guess I expected alot more coverage today, maybe tonight? If not oh well.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by jubie View Post
    HA ha ha ha! I guess I expected alot more coverage today, maybe tonight? If not oh well.
    I guess even the media is embarrassed to report much more of this nonsense by Lacy.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    It is entirely possible that JB got that DNA under her nails from playing with anything that day. She could even have gotten it off the banister of either the front or spiral staircase! Remember the Ramsey’s opened their home for those Christmas “tours” where anyone could walk in and walk through the home so anyone who went through the house could have deposited his DNA on the banister.

    Or perhaps the person who put JB’s bike together for her left his DNA and she got it from there…
    Or it could have been anyone else who handled any of the presents that were put into packages (think factory worker) for the kids that year.
    Good points, Seeker. Also, according to Patsy herself (see police interview transcript) JonBenet's last bath was while getting ready to go to the Christmas Eve church service. The service was at 4:00 or 4:30 on Christmas Eve. After church they went out to a restaurant (Pasta Jay's) for dinner. Patsy could not remember any time after that bath and prior to JB's death that JB was bathed or washed or was observed doing so on her own. She could've picked up DNA under her fingernails from church or the restaurant that she later transferred herself to her underwear and long johns anytime in the subsequent 24+ hours.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    remotely
    Posts
    42,943
    Thank you Seeker for your extremely intelligent post.

    You can choose to be bitter or better when handling your problems.


    Ř My posts are just my opinion and for entertainment purposes only.
    Do not copy any of my post. All post are to remain here.



    Christopher McCandless (aka Alexander Supertramp)
    2/12/1968 -8/1992 RIP you are missed.




    http://www.bringkyronhome.org/
    If you have information about Kyron Horman, please call the Tip Line at 503-261-2847 or dial 911

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    I agree with the consensus of RDI's;this is just Mary Lacy's gift to John Ramsey before she leaves office.John is obviously afraid of who and what might happen once she leaves,so he's trying to seal the deal before anything else can occur.
    They might have fooled some people,but 'those who are wise shall understand'.It's nothing more than a rehash of past behavior.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    ..some of the dna,according to Mark Fuhrman, is also said to be stutter dna,or a replication of some of JB's own dna,which is why Mark also stated the dna had Ramsey 'ramifications' I believe is how he put it.(But I also take it to mean some could be Burke's.We really don't know without all the evidence from it on the table.) Also at that time,the camera caught Dr Baden shaking his head in agreement.
    So I wouldn't think dna on the waistband,(no matter which side it was on),matching some of the markers (since some were likely duplicated,familial markers anyway),would be all that unusual!!
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,619
    On what basis is Lacy saying that it belongs to a "male who is not a Ramsey"?



Similar Threads

  1. She's close to..."home", "hope", "holts"...
    By Pink Panther in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 05:25 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 11:11 PM
  3. GUILTY TX - Dr. Calvin Day for sexual assault of patient, San Antonio, 2013
    By wfgodot in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 10:02 AM
  4. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM