4/19/04 Globe: DNA is saliva and mucous from runny nose

[SisterSocks]

There is NO way that DNA was left by saliva, sweat, tears and nose mucous - and at the same time be true that the DNA amount was so miniscule that they cannot obtain more than 10 markers from the sample!
C'mon! Both cannot be true!
Someone is feeding a big line of B.S.

At this point, they could not pin that speck of DNA on ANYONE! Ramsey or not. So this claim of it "not belonging to a Ramsey" is just verbal engineering.
And why don't they also say that it doesn't "belong to a Paugh" either?
Patsy has NO "Ramsey" DNA in her body. It's Paugh DNA.

Good grief Shy , your not always right--- infact this time I think your wrong.
Socks

 

[Shylock]

Good grief Shy , your not always right--- infact this time I think your wrong.
Socks

You quoted K777Angel but addressed your comment to me. That doesn't show you're thinking too well at all, Socks... LOL!
Why don't you make yourself a cup of strong coffee and try again later.:banghead:

IMO

 

[sissi]

Gray also said "Nobody in that family matches the DNA that was found". He added "It matches very clearly to some male person outside the family".

It matches "clearly" to some male person? Are the t's being crossed,will an announcement soon be made? Not it "one day will clearly match",but "it matches very clearly"..HUH?

Following OR does not implicate the parents..doors open,windows open,foreign dna,a ransom note,items missing,Occam's Razor screams INTRUDER!
IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

BC, don't tell me you're going to be like DocWatson and have a problem understanding Occam's Razor. One of the first rules of that theory analysis is that you don't introduce any additional variables into the equation besides what already exist. Occam's Razor demands that one of the THREE KNOWN people present during the crime is the person responsible:

Shylock,

Correct. So why are you introducing into the equation a male Asian Garment worker who sneezed on the underwear as the possible source of the DNA in JonBenet's panties? Sum Yung Gai wasn't in the house on the night of the murder. He wasn't even in the U.S.

The DNA exists. Yet it isn't John's; it isn't Burke's; and it isn't Patsy's. Therefore, the most plausible theory to follow (Occam's Razor) is that the DNA must belong to a fifth person who was likely in the house that night.

JMO

 

[Britt]

So why are you introducing into the equation a male Asian Garment worker who sneezed on the underwear as the possible source of the DNA in JonBenet's panties? Sum Yung Gai wasn't in the house on the night of the murder. He wasn't even in the U.S.

Of course not, but the underwear was there and it may have included Mr. Gai's DNA. From the above posted link:

...investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

Since there is proof that the DNA existed on some of these panties, this variable already exists and therefore "Mr. Gai" is not an additional variable.

 

[sissi]

There is dna under her nails that will prove to contain at least six of the markers found in the underwear,it may not be enough to claim it as a "match",however it will be considered statistically
sound evidence . The dna under her nails can not be excluded as a match to the dna in her underwear.
IMO

 

[Ivy]

Melissa Weber, molecular biologist at CellMark Laboratories said after CellMark analyzed the DNA that the so-called "foreign" DNA could be the result of a false positive (stutter.) She also said that if the "foreign" DNA wasn't stutter and that it came from more than one person, then NO ONE could be excluded, and that includes the Ramseys. Despite what Weber said, Lou Smit kept insisting that the "foreign" DNA didn't match Burke or John Ramsey, but the truth is that this is only so if the "foreign" DNA (if it really exists) came from just one person. It has never been determined whether the "foreign" DNA was real or stutter, or, in the event that it was real, how many people's DNA contributed to the sample.

Furthermore, the DNA markers in the panties sample do not match the markers in the fingernails sample. People who are sure the samples are connected to the crime will have to come up with more than one intruder...or admit that the "foreign" DNA is stutter.

imo

 

[BlueCrab]

Of course not, but the underwear was there and it may have included Mr. Gai's DNA. From the above posted link:

...investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

Since there is proof that the DNA existed on some of these panties, this variable already exists and therefore "Mr. Gai" is not an additional variable.

First of all, almost all Asian garment workers are female, and the DNA in JonBenet's panties is male. Second, if the hypothetical variable of someone PERHAPS previously sneezing on crime scene DNA evidence and thus contaminating it is introduced into the equation and upheld, then most of the FBI's CODIS information can be thrown into the garbage can.

The source of the DNA on the panties (blood? saliva? etc.) isn't known by us, but Ollie Gray likely knows. Gray is an experienced private professional and was an integral part of the investigation and the interviews. His comments must be given appropriate credibility.

Occam's Razor tells us the male foreign DNA found in JonBenet's panties is likely saliva from her killer.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

Since there is proof that the DNA existed on some of these panties, this variable already exists and therefore "Mr. Gai" is not an additional variable.

Exactly Britt, I couldn't have answered BC's question better myself. The DNA existing in the panties BEFORE the crime is NOT introducing new variables into the crime analysis any more than debris blown through the broken basement window would be. The window debris and the DNA may have existed BEFORE the crime.

 

[Shylock]

The source of the DNA on the panties (blood? saliva? etc.) isn't known by us, but Ollie Gray likely knows. Gray is an experienced private professional and was an integral part of the investigation and the interviews. His comments must be given appropriate credibility.

What makes you think Ollie Gray even knows jack? Read the tabloid quote from him CLOSELY, either Gray was misquoted and was really just naming "possible sources for DNA", or the man is an idiot who knows nothing about DNA.

His comment can't be given "appropriate credibility" because as it stands it's as stupid as Smit saying blue veins are created by stun gun usage.

 

[Shylock]

The dna under her nails can not be excluded as a match to the dna in her underwear.

Sissi, we've been through this before. If the DNA is from multiple donors, nobody can be excluded--so what's the point.

 

[BlueCrab]

Shylock,

There's DNA almost everywhere, including just about everything you have touched today. Trace DNA (one or two identifiable markers) from you is likely on the bathroom doorknob, and on the Sunday newspaper you read this morning. And yes, there can be trace DNA on panties from the workers who touched the garment at the factory.

But it's not likely that 10 identifiable male DNA markers from SumYungGai or any other male in Asia are on the panties. And the tests on the previously unopened garments simply said DNA, not male DNA. Asian garment workers are FEMALE.

It's a giant leap in faith to say the male DNA with 10 markers found in the CROTCH of JonBenet's panties came from an Asian male garment worker who was half way on the other side of Earth on the day the panties were manufactured and on December 26, 1996.

Occam's Razor says nope. That's a diversion and highly unlikely. This was a sexual murder. The source of the DNA found in the crotch of JonBenet's panties was most likely saliva and mucus deposited by her killer during oral sex.

JMO

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Any quotations any of us can provide from articles or books written before the analysis of the 2nd spot of blood in the crotch of the panties became known just aren't going to apply to that male DNA profile that has been submitted to the FBI's CODIS databank.

The 2nd spot yielded a profile with at least 10 markers. We have no information that that DNA sample is anything but a good, usable sample.

We can't say this particular sample from the 2nd spot of blood is a product of "contamination" or "stutter".

That said, I don't give any story in any tabloid the least consideration of accuracy.

 

[Shylock]

Asian garment workers are FEMALE.
It's a giant leap in faith to say the male DNA with 10 markers found in the CROTCH of JonBenet's panties came from an Asian male garment worker who was half way on the other side of Earth on the day the panties were manufactured and on December 26, 1996.

First off, I don't know where you get the idea that Asian garment workers are only women--there are just as many starving men in Asia as women. Here's just one article of many that I found which proves you wrong:

"The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that the Siriwat Garment Factory employer abused at least 75 Burmese migrant workers in Mae Sot, Thailand, who were forced to work under inhumane conditions. At least 75 legal Burmese workers (64 female and 11 male) from the Siriwat Garment Factory were severely abused by the factory employer, Mr. Chalermpol Paiboonpol"
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2003/535/

Secondly, I think there is just as much chance that the DNA came from the panties point of sale as there is the point of manufacture. The panties were new, right out of the package. Who knows what was on the package that she could have gotten on her hand and transfered to the fabric. The DNA might belong to a stockboy or customer who sneezed in the display aisle.

Without an identifiable source for the DNA which pins it to the crime, the DNA is a non-issue in this case.

 

[Shylock]

Any quotations any of us can provide from articles or books written before the analysis of the 2nd spot of blood in the crotch of the panties became known just aren't going to apply to that male DNA profile that has been submitted to the FBI's CODIS databank.

Wrong. Thomas' book came out in 2000, AFTER the testing of the second spot:

LiN WOOD on LKL: "In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard."

While Thomas had already left the BPD by that time, he maintains that he stayed in touch with his friends on the BPD was was up to date on the case both before and after his book was printed.

 

[BlueCrab]

Without an identifiable source for the DNA which pins it to the crime, the DNA is a non-issue in this case.

Shylock, that doesn't make any sense. For instance, what you're saying is that fingerprints on a gun that was used to commit a murder is a non-issue since there's no identifiable source for the fingerprints.



JMO

 

[Shylock]

Shylock, that doesn't make any sense. For instance, what you're saying is that fingerprints on a gun that was used to commit a murder is a non-issue since there's no identifiable source for the fingerprints.

Not at all, BlueCrab. You can't relate DNA to a fingerprint because a fingerprint IS the source. DNA requires a source.
Consider the following 2 examples:

Cop1: "I have tiny curvy lines of body oil on the trigger of the gun."
Cop2: "Are those lines from a fingerprint?"
Cop1: "Impossible to tell."
Cop2: "Then those lines may not even be related to the crime because we can't be sure how they got there."

Cop1: "I have incomplete DNA strands in the crotch of the panties."
Cop2: "Are those strands from saliva, or blood, or semen, or sweat, or urine?"
Cop1: "Impossible to tell."
Cop2: "Then those strands may not even be related to the crime because we can't be sure how they got there."


IMO/JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Cop Apprentice: "Those DNA markers are not related to the crime because we can't be sure how they got there"

Donald Trump: "You're fired."

JMO

 

[Jayelles]

Shylock, that doesn't make any sense. For instance, what you're saying is that fingerprints on a gun that was used to commit a murder is a non-issue since there's no identifiable source for the fingerprints.



JMO

I don't think it's quite the same thing. For a finger print to be on a gun, the gun MUST have been n contact with the finger. DNA can be transferred via a 3rd party.

 

[Shylock]

Good observation, BlueCrab. Yes, the DNA found in the panties could very well belong to Donald Trump. He was known to shop at Bloomingdales with his daughter Ivanka, who was a skinny 14 year old at the time of the Ramsey murder and would have fit nicely into the size-12 panties. If "The Donald" was shopping with a cold, and sneezed in the underwear aisle, the mystery is solved.

Impossible? - Not at all. That's why the DNA is totally useless to this case.
From Sum Yung Gai to The Donald--swab em all!

IMO