DNA quality poll 1 of 3

[andreww]

How many years passed before these tiny spots of DNA were found? And how many people handled those garments or were close to them in that period of time? We know how sloppy these test labs could be during that era ("what do you think about that Mr Fung?) so it is pretty inconceivable that an accurate list of handlers was kept over the 12 year period, when lab personnel were finally tested. I'm sure they tested the main players, but did they test everyone?

The other thing that I found interesting about the waistband test on the long Johns, precipitated by Mary Lacy, is that they only found the DNA that she happened to be looking for. When they took those scrapings, you'd think that JBs DNA would have been prominent as she'd probably pulled them up and down numerous times. Was her DNA found? Was Patsy's DNA found? How about the housekeeper that presumably washed and folded them? All these people that we know handled the garment and the only DNA they find matches the one tiny speck found in the panties?

To me this case has what I believe to be obvious suspects. IDIs will point to this mysterious DNA as conclusive proof, but I wonder why the the parents weren't arrested previous to its discovery? There was an obvious push from the people in power to keep the Rs out of jail, so what's to say that that DNA evidence, found years after the fact, wasn't planted or concocted?

Also, we know the press and tabloids were relentless about the case. People were invading photo labs, the morgue, and trying to infiltrate the hand writing analysts to get any info on this case. Whose to say some lowly clerk didn't illegally handle that evidence in some evidence locker?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

How many years passed before these tiny spots of DNA were found? And how many people handled those garments or were close to them in that period of time? We know how sloppy these test labs could be during that era ("what do you think about that Mr Fung?) so it is pretty inconceivable that an accurate list of handlers was kept over the 12 year period, when lab personnel were finally tested. I'm sure they tested the main players, but did they test everyone?

The other thing that I found interesting about the waistband test on the long Johns, precipitated by Mary Lacy, is that they only found the DNA that she happened to be looking for. When they took those scrapings, you'd think that JBs DNA would have been prominent as she'd probably pulled them up and down numerous times. Was her DNA found? Was Patsy's DNA found? How about the housekeeper that presumably washed and folded them? All these people that we know handled the garment and the only DNA they find matches the one tiny speck found in the panties?

To me this case has what I believe to be obvious suspects. IDIs will point to this mysterious DNA as conclusive proof, but I wonder why the the parents weren't arrested previous to its discovery? There was an obvious push from the people in power to keep the Rs out of jail, so what's to say that that DNA evidence, found years after the fact, wasn't planted or concocted?

Also, we know the press and tabloids were relentless about the case. People were invading photo labs, the morgue, and trying to infiltrate the hand writing analysts to get any info on this case. Whose to say some lowly clerk didn't illegally handle that evidence in some evidence locker?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
So they did the tests and did they release all the results, did they tell us if JR's touch-dna is on the size-12's or is it PR's, how about BR's touch-dna, which was found on the pink nightgown?

The touch-dna evidence released is patently self-serving and selective!

.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
So they did the tests and did they release all the results, did they tell us if JR's touch-dna is on the size-12's or is it PR's, how about BR's touch-dna, which was found on the pink nightgown?

The touch-dna evidence released is patently self-serving and selective!

.

Thats the difficult thing about this case UKGuy. You have the RDIs saying "this is the evidence", and you have the IDIs saying "No, this is the evidence". So much of the evidence that excludes the Ramsey's comes from Hunter, Lacy or the Ramsey legal team. Evidence that points to the Ramseys seems to come from the people that actually worked the case, Kolar & Thomas. So its pretty obvious that just about everything we know has only been release to support a theory, one way or the other. However, Kolar and Thomas' hands are somewhat tied as to what they can actually say. So nowhere is the entire story being told, and everything that everybody says here is pure speculation at the very best.