- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,447
- Reaction score
- 46,096
Where do we start...how about this. Let's make this as simple as possible.
The DNA is a red herring. It is "touch" DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains.
What is "Touch DNA"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA
Remember how excited people became because the DNA in JonBenet's panties (touch DNA) had to belong to the Intruder because the panties were brand new so where else could the DNA have come from?
From James Kolar's book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet : Page 272
Even former Boulder DA Mary ( I never met a Ramsey intruder I didn't love ) Lacy had to admit that the DNA could be an artifact.
She thought John Mark Karr was the killer and was just thrilled to parade him around. Of course, his DNA didn't match. So what does Mary Lacy say? She says, "The DNA might be an artifact". Even Mary Lacy is forced to admit there is a chance the DNA doesn't mean anything.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Press-Conference-About-John-Mark-Karr-8-29-06
Simply put I don't think it takes an expert to realize we all have touch DNA on use. All over us. It means nothing. It means we have come in contact with dust, air, and other people in our day to day routines.
What about the DNA in the underwear matching the DNA on the long johns? Ok, easy explanation. When putting the underpants on JonBenet the underwear brushed up against the long johns. Transferred touch DNA.
This is very easy to understand.
There are so many members who are oodles smarter than I am. Please weigh in on the DNA.
Let's put the DNA to rest once and for all.
To pretend that the touch DNA is the key to solving this case you have to IGNORE the ransom note, IGNORE the pineapple and the bowl, IGNORE the Ramsey lies, IGNORE all the strange things that went on with Burke, IGNORE the beaver hair on the tape, IGNORE so many other things that they slip my mind.
DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.
The DNA is a red herring. It is "touch" DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains.
What is "Touch DNA"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA
Touch DNA is a forensic method for analysing DNA left at the scene of a crime. It is called "touch DNA" because it only requires very small samples, for example from the skin cells left on an object after it has been touched or casually handled.[SUP][1][/SUP] Touch DNA analysis only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of human skin.[SUP][2][/SUP] The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Remember how excited people became because the DNA in JonBenet's panties (touch DNA) had to belong to the Intruder because the panties were brand new so where else could the DNA have come from?
From James Kolar's book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet : Page 272
" Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigation scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children's underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacture/packaging end of the line.
I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting, seamstress/handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
Under those sircumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the uderwear and that its presence may have nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenet"
Even former Boulder DA Mary ( I never met a Ramsey intruder I didn't love ) Lacy had to admit that the DNA could be an artifact.
She thought John Mark Karr was the killer and was just thrilled to parade him around. Of course, his DNA didn't match. So what does Mary Lacy say? She says, "The DNA might be an artifact". Even Mary Lacy is forced to admit there is a chance the DNA doesn't mean anything.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Press-Conference-About-John-Mark-Karr-8-29-06
Simply put I don't think it takes an expert to realize we all have touch DNA on use. All over us. It means nothing. It means we have come in contact with dust, air, and other people in our day to day routines.
What about the DNA in the underwear matching the DNA on the long johns? Ok, easy explanation. When putting the underpants on JonBenet the underwear brushed up against the long johns. Transferred touch DNA.
This is very easy to understand.
There are so many members who are oodles smarter than I am. Please weigh in on the DNA.
Let's put the DNA to rest once and for all.
To pretend that the touch DNA is the key to solving this case you have to IGNORE the ransom note, IGNORE the pineapple and the bowl, IGNORE the Ramsey lies, IGNORE all the strange things that went on with Burke, IGNORE the beaver hair on the tape, IGNORE so many other things that they slip my mind.
DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.