1089 users online (215 members and 874 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,493

    A Protest Message

    A poster named Aurora went to John Ramsey's announcement rally on Tuesday.

    You have to click on this link.
    http://www.clickondetroit.com/politi...1/detail.html#

    Then click on the video, "John Ramsey responds to accusations in JonBenet's death."

    There you will see what Aurora and her husband did. Let's just say I have a feeling more "umbrella's" will be showing up around Michigan.

    Tricia
    ps. If you have Norton Security you may have to turn it off. That's what I had to do to get the Real Player to connect.
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out our Facebook page
    Follow me on Twitter

    Tricia Griffith
    triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098






  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In heels
    Posts
    27,889
    Wal-Mart better stock up on black umbrellas.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    3,868
    Aurora you are wonderful! And nice looking too! Too bad no one understands it wasn't fresh dna but degraded dna.
    -
    My opinion and nothing but my opinion.

    Tor:Con Index link below. Will show you the probability of a tornado happening in your area.
    http://www.weather.com/news/tornado-torcon-index

    FEMA's link for Emergency Supplies list below or what you need to survive for three days in case help is not immediately available to you.
    http://www.ready.gov/document/family-supply-list

    You can also purchase a weather radio which will inform you of severe weather even if your electricity goes out. Runs on batteries of course.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    portland, Ore
    Posts
    18,228
    Hi ShowMe,

    So that means it can't be used to determine a match? What about Midocondrial {sp} DNA. Can degraded DNA be used in that test?



    Scandi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by scandi
    Hi ShowMe,

    So that means it can't be used to determine a match? What about Midocondrial {sp} DNA. Can degraded DNA be used in that test?
    Scandi
    Scandi, the "DNA" does not even have a full set of markers. For the DNA to be considered complete and viable, it has to have (at the very least) 13 markers.

    The DNA in question was found mixed in a tiny drop of blood found in JBR's underwear. From what has been documented, the DNA has perhaps 9 markers, and maybe half of 10.

    That is why it is said to be "old," degraded and not related to the crime. Complete DNA can be extracted from 1,000 year old mummies and fossils. It does not degrade (and lose markers) easily.

    Obvously, a complete set of JonBenet's 13 DNA markers was found in the small spot of blood, as well as an additional 9 markers. Where did those extra 9 markers come from, and why are they not complete? If they were deposited at the same time (within the same 24 hours) as JBR's blood, there should be a full set of DNA markers.

    This is the primary argument against the DNA being that of some nefarious intruder. In addition, the underwear was apparently new from a package and never washed. This leads LE to wonder if the partial DNA was in the underwear BEFORE it ever touched JonBenet.

    Mitochondrial DNA can only be traced through the female line. Burke and JonBenet would have Patsy's mitochondrial DNA, and their maternal grandmother Nedra's MtDNA, and further on back. However, Burke cannot pass on this MtDNA to his children ... it is only passed on by the female.

    This presents an interesting sidenote to the assertion that the partial DNA is not that of a "Ramsey male."

    If the partial DNA is viewed from the standpoint of MtDNA, that excludes John Ramsey and his son John Andrew Ramsey (who was not a child of Patsy Ramsey). However, it DOES NOT exclude Burke Ramsey. Mitochondrially speaking, Burke is not a "Ramsey" but belongs to the maternal side of Patsy's family.

    I am not saying Burke is the source of the partial DNA, I am just pointing out the "word games" sometimes used by lawyers and LE when they try to influence public opinion, or do not wish to make full disclosure of evidence.

    IMO

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    Scandi, the "DNA" does not even have a full set of markers. For the DNA to be considered complete and viable, it has to have (at the very least) 13 markers.

    The DNA in question was found mixed in a tiny drop of blood found in JBR's underwear. From what has been documented, the DNA has perhaps 9 markers, and maybe half of 10.

    That is why it is said to be "old," degraded and not related to the crime. Complete DNA can be extracted from 1,000 year old mummies and fossils. It does not degrade (and lose markers) easily.

    Obvously, a complete set of JonBenet's 13 DNA markers was found in the small spot of blood, as well as an additional 9 markers. Where did those extra 9 markers come from, and why are they not complete? If they were deposited at the same time (within the same 24 hours) as JBR's blood, there should be a full set of DNA markers.

    This is the primary argument against the DNA being that of some nefarious intruder. In addition, the underwear was apparently new from a package and never washed. This leads LE to wonder if the partial DNA was in the underwear BEFORE it ever touched JonBenet.

    Mitochondrial DNA can only be traced through the female line. Burke and JonBenet would have Patsy's mitochondrial DNA, and their maternal grandmother Nedra's MtDNA, and further on back. However, Burke cannot pass on this MtDNA to his children ... it is only passed on by the female.

    This presents an interesting sidenote to the assertion that the partial DNA is not that of a "Ramsey male."

    If the partial DNA is viewed from the standpoint of MtDNA, that excludes John Ramsey and his son John Andrew Ramsey (who was not a child of Patsy Ramsey). However, it DOES NOT exclude Burke Ramsey. Mitochondrially speaking, Burke is not a "Ramsey" but belongs to the maternal side of Patsy's family.

    I am not saying Burke is the source of the partial DNA, I am just pointing out the "word games" sometimes used by lawyers and LE when they try to influence public opinion, or do not wish to make full disclosure of evidence.

    IMO

    Cherokee,

    I DISAGREE with you on one point in your above post and AGREE with you on one point.

    I DISAGREE that 13 markers are needed for the crime scene DNA to be a sample that can be considered useable. San Diego, until recently, routinely used just 6 markers to eliminate suspects. The FBI set 13 as the preferred criteria for CODIS in order to keep the number of cases in the system down to a manageable level and to improve the arguments of prosecutors trying to convince a jury they have the right suspect.

    I AGREE with you the DNA elimination of "male Ramseys" could technically not include Burke because the authorities may be trickily using the mitochondria DNA method, making Burke a "male Paugh" so to speak, not a male Ramsey. I hadn't thought of that, but it sure falls in line with the other tricks Boulder authorities have sprung, such as trying to make Burke look "cleared" with fraudulent affidavits when he has NEVER been cleared. It also falls in line with Mark Fuhrman's off-the-cuff comment, and tacit approval by Dr. Michael Baden, that the foreign DNA on JonBenet "has Ramsey family markers").

    If the authorities did indeed use the mitochondria method of analyzing the foreign DNA on JonBenet and used that to technically and properly say it is "not from a Ramsey male", then that sneaky technique would convince me the foreign DNA is Burke's and therefore Burke likely sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet.

    JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Cherokee,

    I DISAGREE that 13 markers are needed for the crime scene DNA to be a sample that can be considered useable. San Diego, until recently, routinely used just 6 markers to eliminate suspects. The FBI set 13 as the preferred criteria for CODIS in order to keep the number of cases in the system down to a manageable level and to improve the arguments of prosecutors trying to convince a jury they have the right suspect.
    BC, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain in my post. I did not say there had to be 13 markers for the sample to be "useable".

    I said, "For the DNA to be considered complete and viable, it has to have (at the very least) 13 markers."

    That is the standard set by the FBI, as you pointed out in your post.

    Yes, 6 markers can be used to eliminate suspects, but it cannot be used to convict a suspect.

    In other words, one of those 6 markers may not be included in a suspect's DNA, and therefore that suspect is eliminated (just as you referenced in San Diego). However, 6 markers is not enough to prove a suspect's guilt or innocence if those 6 are a match because the other 7 are missing, and any one of those missing markers may not be a match to the suspect's DNA.



    IMO