DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

[Roy23]

It isn’t that simple.
The word “match” is virtually meaningless unless the number of matching markers is given.
Once upon a time, Lou Smit, Ollie Gray and John San Agustin (Ramsey shills) were running around talking about matching DNA when the amount “matching” was only 2 – 4 markers and to make matters worse they were in some cases comparing incompatible markers.
As I indicated in my previous post, the man who briefed Jim Kolar and the Cold Case Task Force in 2009, while being very forthcoming about the number of markers in the TDNA on the “garrote” and wrist bindings all of a sudden clammed up and would only say that the TDNA on the leggings was weaker than the 10 marker profile from the panties. Why? Could it be because he was too ashamed to say it was maybe only 4 or 5 markers?

I haven't quite gotten there yet in the book. But I stand by my prior statement that if it is not a match, it is a lie or a severe misrepresentation. Let me finish the book. This dude is going to get sued I am afraid.

 

[cynic]

I haven't quite gotten there yet in the book. But I stand by my prior statement that if it is not a match, it is a lie or a severe misrepresentation. Let me finish the book. This dude is going to get sued I am afraid.

I actually know of a case where a prosecutor attempted to use a 1 marker “match,” against a defendant.
Who knows whether the prosecutor just didn’t know enough about DNA or whether it was an attempt to sway the jury with something that is completely meaningless and makes a mockery of the word, “match?”
My point is the same as in the earlier post, why the silence with respect to the TDNA on the leggings?
Why only go as far as saying it was weaker than the CODIS sample when he was so willing to share marker counts from other TDNA evidence? The inescapable conclusion is that he was embarrassed.
With respect to lies and misrepresentation, this is ML that we are talking about.
As I said, the book will be an eye opener for you, of that I have no doubt.

 

[Roy23]

w

I actually know of a case where a prosecutor attempted to use a 1 marker “match,” against a defendant.
Who knows whether the prosecutor just didn’t know enough about DNA or whether it was an attempt to sway the jury with something that is completely meaningless and makes a mockery of the word, “match?”
My point is the same as in the earlier post, why the silence with respect to the TDNA on the leggings?
Why only go as far as saying it was weaker than the CODIS sample when he was so willing to share marker counts from other TDNA evidence? The inescapable conclusion is that he was embarrassed.
With respect to lies and misrepresentation, this is ML that we are talking about.
As I said, the book will be an eye opener for you, of that I have no doubt.

You know what, I don't know if eye opener is the correct term but you are right. I hope you had a little eye opener with the fingernail DNA but I suspect you won't admit that. I hope you do because we might be able to have some good discussions about some of this. I have read stuff on this case but I could never in good conscience read either a Ramsey book or ST's book. I can say that I am glad I purchased this book even though it is rehashed information. Coming from where he has been, I can accept some things better.

This case is tough. And it has taken its toll on a lot of people.

 

[cynic]

w

You know what, I don't know if eye opener is the correct term but you are right. I hope you had a little eye opener with the fingernail DNA but I suspect you won't admit that. I hope you do because we might be able to have some good discussions about some of this. I have read stuff on this case but I could never in good conscience read either a Ramsey book or ST's book. I can say that I am glad I purchased this book even though it is rehashed information. Coming from where he has been, I can accept some things better.

This case is tough. And it has taken its toll on a lot of people.

The fingernail DNA is an eye opener for me????? I’m not sure how you’ve formed that conclusion.
I have always maintained that it is weak unrelated DNA that matches nothing.
That is precisely what Kolar determined to be the case.

 

[KoldKase]

w

You know what, I don't know if eye opener is the correct term but you are right. I hope you had a little eye opener with the fingernail DNA but I suspect you won't admit that. I hope you do because we might be able to have some good discussions about some of this. I have read stuff on this case but I could never in good conscience read either a Ramsey book or ST's book. I can say that I am glad I purchased this book even though it is rehashed information. Coming from where he has been, I can accept some things better.

This case is tough. And it has taken its toll on a lot of people.

I agree that one important element of this book is the repeating of case evidence we have debated for so long. Having another voice at this time, from someone with the credibility of actual LE, is important.

Also there is new info, and whether we agree or disagree, it is "fresh eyes," which Lacy and Smit both claimed they wanted on the case, though they quickly changed their minds once the "fresh eyes" didn't come to their personal foregone conclusions.

As for the DNA, for the sake of argument, let's say the DNA on the underwear and on the waist bands of the longjohns does "match." So what does that prove? Only that someone handled those items in much the same way as Patsy did, if she put those longjohns on JB that night; in much the same way as Dr. Meyer did when he undressed and bagged the clothing, as well as when he examined the blood drops in the Bloomies against the child's own genitalia; in much the same way as the science techs who processed the evidence from the clothing handled them; in much the same way as the person who pulled them down that night to sexually abuse the child with a paintbrush, possibly peri mortem, wiped the blood from her genitals with some type of cloth did, and then redressed the victim by pulling all that back up; in much the same way JB would have herself pulled the clothing down and up if she dressed herself, contrary to Patsy's and John's story which only is their word--and we have Burke contradicting that, as well.

So it always is going to come back to the DNA on the clothing, at the crime scene, is only useful if it proves something. And this DNA proves nothing so far. It can't be dated, it can't be sourced, and some of it can't be identified as skin, semen, or blood with partial profiles so small, according to Kolar.

To dismiss all the remaining evidence based on this DNA is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you're that determined to prove it wasn't a Ramsey, then save yourself, save your time and sanity looking to prove it, and just believe that.

Because the DNA proves nothing, as there's just not enough of it and there is no evidence to indicate any intruder left it behind, much less six intruders.

 

[KoldKase]

The fingernail DNA is an eye opener for me????? I’m not sure how you’ve formed that conclusion.
I have always maintained that it is weak unrelated DNA that matches nothing.
That is precisely what Kolar determined to be the case.

As I recall, Kolar indicated the fingernail DNA was so weak as to be questionable even in the resulting few markers which were developed. Mixing of profiles was also a problem.

 

[Roy23]

The fingernail DNA is an eye opener for me????? I’m not sure how you’ve formed that conclusion.
I have always maintained that it is weak unrelated DNA that matches nothing.
That is precisely what Kolar determined to be the case.

The problem is that they have tried to find the innocent sources of this DNA. And no one they have tested have been ruled out. That includes the other dead corpses that had autopsied.

I have finished the book now. The book certainly does not rule the DNA as red herring. But lots of questions remain unresolved. That is the depressing part.

 

[cynic]

The problem is that they have tried to find the innocent sources of this DNA. And no one they have tested have been ruled out. That includes the other dead corpses that had autopsied.

I have finished the book now. The book certainly does not rule the DNA as red herring. But lots of questions remain unresolved. That is the depressing part.

As per my first post, previous autopsy subjects (as mentioned in Kolar's book) are not necessarily ruled out if the subjects were there for medical rather than legal reasons. The reason is that nails are not clipped during the course of a medical autopsy, to the best of my knowledge.
Moreover, if the coroner ran such a lax morgue that he didn't sterilize his nail clippers (by his own admission) then contaminant may have been picked up from another surface.

The DNA is a red herring.
The primary reason is the impossible issue of deciding which is the "criminal" DNA? Who will be the arbiter, what criteria will be used and, what do we say about the rest of the "non-criminal" DNA?
Is it the DNA on the murder weapon? In most cases this is a no-brainer, why wouldn’t the DNA from the person responsible for the death of JonBenet be on the murder weapon?
Oh, but there’s a problem, former DA Lacy declared to the world that the DNA that’s relevant is the DNA on the underwear.
Is it the DNA under her fingernails? After all, the “infallible, super-detective,” Lou Smit assured us that JonBenet, and I quote, “got a piece of the intruder.”
Surely the architect of the intruder theory couldn’t be wrong?
But wait a minute; there are no less than two unique male intruder profiles and one unique female profile under her fingernails. Who did she scratch? It couldn’t be contamination, or DNA picked innocently by JonBenet, could it? Could it be that Lou was wrong, unthinkable?
I could work my way through the rest of the profiles but I think you get the idea.

How do we resolve this?
The solution involves something that the RDI camp has been saying for years - where does the totality of the evidence lead?
Kolar looked at the totality of the evidence and realized that an intruder did not do this.

While the state of the DNA evidence may be a contaminated mess, some things are crystal clear.
JonBenet was the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
Behavior and statements by JR, PR and BR suggest complicity in a cover up at the very least.
The above must be considered in a proper evaluation of the case.

 

[Tadpole12]

In my first post I relate that Kolar tells us that there were 6 genetically unique partial profiles.
Kolar's understanding is that it was traced to Taiwan.
The markers used in CODIS were not selected with the purpose of determining racial identity. The selection of a given marker was based on the polymorphic characteristics, that is, the variability between human beings at that particular genetic location and therefore its usefulness in uniquely identifying a person.
It’s true that while some studies have shown some alleles in the loci (or markers) that comprise a CODIS profile can be found with a slightly greater degree of frequency in some races, no definitive conclusions can be made.
Here is a reference that bears out what I said:
But while CODIS is good at linking the criminals who are already catalogued from other crimes, the system is useless in identifying physical characteristics. It says nothing about race. It has been specifically set up to reveal no racial information whatsoever, in part so that the test would be consistently accurate irrespective of race.
But non-scientific considerations also factored into how the system was established. When the national DNA Advisory Board selected the gene markers, or DNA sequences which have a known location on a chromosome, for CODIS, they deliberately chose not to include markers associated with ancestral geographic origins to avoid any political maelstrom.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all
1996 was 2 years later than 1994 when the OJ Simpson case made DNA a household term.
It would not be terribly unusual for elementary precautions to be taken, such as wearing gloves.
Keep in mind that there was very damaging fiber evidence pointing to the Ramseys, including the following.
Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic, and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey’s Essentials jacket. Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 228
It was publicized that when the JonBenet case was returned to the Boulder Police Dept. in 2009 that a task force would be convened to take a fresh look at the evidence.
James Kolar was a part of that task force and a presenter.
JonBenet suffered blunt force trauma that fractured her skull but her skin was not lacerated.

heyya cynic.

"Kolar's understanding is that it was traced to Taiwan."

Are you referring to dna on the 'test' underware?



With respect to race and the dna, what does Kolar specifically mention?



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence

Fox News Report. On December 26, Carol McKinley of Fox News reported (quote and link provided by Internet poster Candy): "One piece of information which has been seen as a major clue, but which is wrong, is that the DNA which was in JonBenet's underwear came from a caucasian male. Truth is, it was never, ever tested for race. Because there's not enough, and it's tested, it will be used up. All we know is, it belongs to a male, we don't know what ethnicity it is." This was stated by McKinley during an exclusive interview with Tom Wickman, former BPD Detective and Grand Jury BPD representative, but it is not clear whether he was the source.

 

[cynic]

heyya cynic.

"Kolar's understanding is that it was traced to Taiwan."

Are you referring to dna on the 'test' underware?



With respect to race and the dna, what does Kolar specifically mention?



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence

Fox News Report. On December 26, Carol McKinley of Fox News reported (quote and link provided by Internet poster Candy): "One piece of information which has been seen as a major clue, but which is wrong, is that the DNA which was in JonBenet's underwear came from a caucasian male. Truth is, it was never, ever tested for race. Because there's not enough, and it's tested, it will be used up. All we know is, it belongs to a male, we don't know what ethnicity it is." This was stated by McKinley during an exclusive interview with Tom Wickman, former BPD Detective and Grand Jury BPD representative, but it is not clear whether he was the source.

Hey Tad,

These passages give the answers with respect to the Bloomies:

Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer.

[SNIP]

It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 -305

Kolar doesn't say a thing about any effort to determine race.
As per your quote and my earlier comments, that was never the intent as far as CODIS markers are concerned.

 

[Roy23]

As per my first post, previous autopsy subjects (as mentioned in Kolar's book) are not necessarily ruled out if the subjects were there for medical rather than legal reasons. The reason is that nails are not clipped during the course of a medical autopsy, to the best of my knowledge.
Moreover, if the coroner ran such a lax morgue that he didn't sterilize his nail clippers (by his own admission) then contaminant may have been picked up from another surface.

The DNA is a red herring.
The primary reason is the impossible issue of deciding which is the "criminal" DNA? Who will be the arbiter, what criteria will be used and, what do we say about the rest of the "non-criminal" DNA?
Is it the DNA on the murder weapon? In most cases this is a no-brainer, why wouldn’t the DNA from the person responsible for the death of JonBenet be on the murder weapon?
Oh, but there’s a problem, former DA Lacy declared to the world that the DNA that’s relevant is the DNA on the underwear.
Is it the DNA under her fingernails? After all, the “infallible, super-detective,” Lou Smit assured us that JonBenet, and I quote, “got a piece of the intruder.”
Surely the architect of the intruder theory couldn’t be wrong?
But wait a minute; there are no less than two unique male intruder profiles and one unique female profile under her fingernails. Who did she scratch? It couldn’t be contamination, or DNA picked innocently by JonBenet, could it? Could it be that Lou was wrong, unthinkable?
I could work my way through the rest of the profiles but I think you get the idea.

How do we resolve this?
The solution involves something that the RDI camp has been saying for years - where does the totality of the evidence lead?
Kolar looked at the totality of the evidence and realized that an intruder did not do this.

While the state of the DNA evidence may be a contaminated mess, some things are crystal clear.
JonBenet was the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
Behavior and statements by JR, PR and BR suggest complicity in a cover up at the very least.
The above must be considered in a proper evaluation of the case.

I amgoing to appeal to you one last time on this. You can't say for sure. No one can and that is why this is so difficult. 6,7,8,9, or 10 markers and other DNA we have to consider all possibilities. They are all unknown. We just need to find one source of it. Or possible sources. What is the alternative? Let's not make this about RDI or IDI like a contest. Kolar, Thomas and all can't prove anything. They have tried to find innocent explanations. I am not fighting IDI anymore. Don't mislead folks, lots of things are possible. Kolar has been blown off by Beckner and Garnett as well. Finding one of the sources of DNA could blow this case open. And lead RDI or IDI. I submit to those facts. The evidence at hand doesn't get justice for JBR. Do you want to play?

I hope Kolar's book stirs up some things. Because we read a lot to blame Ramsey's, the BPD, the DA's different leaders. All of them. Every damn one of them. And they are all still bitter about it. And Kolar he doesn't even know who is not following through now. He can't get help anywhere. Why?

It is obvious we have to be just like the Ramseys, and investigators that all is black or white. Forget the fact that none of the evidence could prove RDI or IDI. I challenge everyone to rise up and stop speaking of theories as fact. Both sides.

 

[cynic]

I am going to appeal to you one last time on this. You can't say for sure. No one can and that is why this is so difficult. 6,7,8,9, or 10 markers and other DNA we have to consider all possibilities. They are all unknown. We just need to find one source of it. Or possible sources. What is the alternative?

The amount of markers is extremely important, BTW.
Kolar has revealed that there are six unique genetic profiles present, all of them partial and some mixed. This is a DNA disaster; to say otherwise is just spin.
As we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, there are cases I can refer you to where there is unidentified forensic evidence including in some cases multiple DNA profiles.
In these cases there have been successful prosecutions. The DNA in these cases was dismissed as contaminant or transfer. Why was the DNA dismissed? Because there was plentiful circumstantial evidence pointing elsewhere. (Just as there is in this case.)
The problem with this case is that the Ramsey spin team has so mesmerized so many people into thinking that as long as there is unidentified DNA, everything else is thrown out the window.
People look at the stunning handwriting comparison charts that implicate Patsy and say, nah, just a coincidence.
They look at the amazing contradictions and, dare I say, lies found in the interviews with the Ramseys and say, well, probably just harmless memory issues.
And then when presented with disturbing evidence of PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE, they say, I guess all those experts are mistaken.

If you think that DNA can trump everything, well, there’s not much more that I can say.
You will probably grow weary of chasing phantoms, though.

Let's not make this about RDI or IDI like a contest. Kolar, Thomas and all can't prove anything. They have tried to find innocent explanations.

On the contrary both Thomas and Kolar have proven that the Ramseys are complicit in the cover up of the crime at the very least.
There are a myriad of innocent possibilities as far as the DNA is concerned.

I am not fighting IDI anymore.

Time will tell, I’m not so sure.

Don't mislead folks, lots of things are possible.

I’m not misleading anyone, and I take offense to that, actually. My arguments, are sourced and in context.

Kolar has been blown off by Beckner and Garnett as well. Finding one of the sources of DNA could blow this case open. And lead RDI or IDI.

Maybe, what if was related to the autopsy but they only matched to the TDNA from the wrist bindings as an example. Would that cause IDI’s to believe that all of the profiles may ultimately find their source to be unrelated to the crime. I seriously doubt it.

I submit to those facts. The evidence at hand doesn't get justice for JBR. Do you want to play?

Play?
Actually the evidence at hand goes a long way to getting justice for JonBenet, because there is more than sufficient evidence to show that a Ramsey is responsible.
Speaking of evidence, if you are really interested in settling things in your mind, read through the LE interviews with the Ramseys. It got Kolar off the fence as well as a great many others I’m sure.
Take a good look at the ransom note and compare it to PR
Take a look at the totality of the evidence.

 

[Roy23]

The amount of markers is extremely important, BTW.
Kolar has revealed that there are six unique genetic profiles present, all of them partial and some mixed. This is a DNA disaster; to say otherwise is just spin.
As we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, there are cases I can refer you to where there is unidentified forensic evidence including in some cases multiple DNA profiles.
In these cases there have been successful prosecutions. The DNA in these cases was dismissed as contaminant or transfer. Why was the DNA dismissed? Because there was plentiful circumstantial evidence pointing elsewhere. (Just as there is in this case.)
The problem with this case is that the Ramsey spin team has so mesmerized so many people into thinking that as long as there is unidentified DNA, everything else is thrown out the window.
People look at the stunning handwriting comparison charts that implicate Patsy and say, nah, just a coincidence.
They look at the amazing contradictions and, dare I say, lies found in the interviews with the Ramseys and say, well, probably just harmless memory issues.
And then when presented with disturbing evidence of PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE, they say, I guess all those experts are mistaken.

If you think that DNA can trump everything, well, there’s not much more that I can say.
You will probably grow weary of chasing phantoms, though.
On the contrary both Thomas and Kolar have proven that the Ramseys are complicit in the cover up of the crime at the very least.
There are a myriad of innocent possibilities as far as the DNA is concerned.
Time will tell, I’m not so sure.
I’m not misleading anyone, and I take offense to that, actually. My arguments, are sourced and in context.
Maybe, what if was related to the autopsy but they only matched to the TDNA from the wrist bindings as an example. Would that cause IDI’s to believe that all of the profiles may ultimately find their source to be unrelated to the crime. I seriously doubt it.
Play?
Actually the evidence at hand goes a long way to getting justice for JonBenet, because there is more than sufficient evidence to show that a Ramsey is responsible.
Speaking of evidence, if you are really interested in settling things in your mind, read through the LE interviews with the Ramseys. It got Kolar off the fence as well as a great many others I’m sure.
Take a good look at the ransom note and compare it to PR
Take a look at the totality of the evidence.

<modsnip> Cynic you are not completely correct on that. There is five different DNAs from different people. All unknown. Some of it seems more relevant but I agree with Kolar that all of it has to be considered. It doesn't prove it is irrelevant and Kolar did not prove the Ramsey's committed a crime. I am listening to the sexual abuse. I am listening to lots of stuff that has been argued back and forth. As it stands, reasonable doubt exists in every part of this case. So Lou Smit didn't get it right, it doesn't prove a thing.

This site want to have discussions or just be RDI pirannah's. I don't care. Opinions are one thing, but to speak it as fact is another. There are five opportunities to prove the DNA is innocent. Maybe you can't prove it with certainty, but it give you something. You cant prosecute a Ramsey without it whether it is right or wrong. why keep fighting a battle you cant win.

And don't think I am oblivious to the fact that the cold case team asked Burke to speak with them. and that Kolar seemed to suggest that they want to get some DNA from Jonbenet and Burkes friends and classmates. <modsnip>

 

[cynic]

<modsnip>Cynic you are not completely correct on that. There is five different DNAs from different people. All unknown. Some of it seems more relevant but I agree with Kolar that all of it has to be considered. It doesn't prove it is irrelevant and Kolar did not prove the Ramsey's committed a crime. I am listening to the sexual abuse. I am listening to lots of stuff that has been argued back and forth. As it stands, reasonable doubt exists in every part of this case. So Lou Smit didn't get it right, it doesn't prove a thing.

This site want to have discussions or just be RDI pirannah's. I don't care. Opinions are one thing, but to speak it as fact is another. There are five opportunities to prove the DNA is innocent. Maybe you can't prove it with certainty, but it give you something. You cant prosecute a Ramsey without it whether it is right or wrong. why keep fighting a battle you cant win.

And don't think I am oblivious to the fact that the cold case team asked Burke to speak with them. and that Kolar seemed to suggest that they want to get some DNA from Jonbenet and Burkes friends and classmates. <modsnip>

While I'm waiting for you to show me where I was wrong in my previous post, I'll show you where you are wrong. I read the book and spoke to Kolar, it was six.
It took several moments for this information to be absorbed by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation. It went something like this: &#8220;Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results, that we are now looking at six different people being involved in this murder?&#8221; Horita reluctantly nodded his head.
Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 413
How do you know what does or doesn't help this case? Do you think that beating the DNA drum to the point where the noise drowns out all of the other relevant evidence is the answer?

 

[wonderllama]

I am all but admitting this could be RDI but you are doing more harm than good. And will continue and this site will be beyond any legitimate discussion for justice.

Hey hey! Let's not have a tanty and belittle the discussions/work people do here - yourself included.

 

[cynic]

The female DNA could not be excluded to be Jon benet's but go ahead and make that a big point. The Ramsey's, any of them, will not even be indicted and never would have been without answering the innocence of the DNA. They have checked every law enforcement and persons known to be in contact with her in days prior. I read the book. And I understand what the issues are. Kolar put his butt on the line. I am not going to connect the dots for you. I am all but admitting this could be RDI but you are doing more harm than good. And will continue and this site will be beyond any legitimate discussion for justice.

That's not correct, either, she could not be excluded as a contributor ONLY, the profile was unique and she could not be the sole source of it.

 

[Roy23]

That's not correct, either, she could not be excluded as a contributor ONLY, the profile was unique and she could not be the sole source of it.

Okay with all this mixed DNA, it is amazing that the strongest DNA is said to have a match. Now I know you have to suggest that ML lied or distorts the truth on that but Garnett, Kolar, and Beckner won't really clear the air on that really. You are making mountains out of molehills. We have to find the source of somebodys dna here. I know you hate it, I hate it, but is this ever going to register.

I am glad I read Kolar's book. It provides a lot more questions and helps us determine more definitively the issues at hand. I understand you have to attack the DNA, it is frustration. Kolar and your theory won't hold, right or wrong bud. Beckner, Garnett, Lacy, Bode, have a reason to shut out or give more research to Kolar's claims. But he makes some great and not so great points. And here is what is big. If the Ramsey's sue him, they will be deposed and those medical records will be unsealed. I have a lot of disdain for lots of parties. Including the
Ramsey;s. Whether they just left it to their attorney's or not, come on in now.

 

[Roy23]

why wont beckner and/or Garnett set the record straight that the DNA is a red herring?

 

[qtc]

Kolar says in his book on page 272, that the FBI took new children's underwear off the shelf and tested it and dna could be lifted off them.

 

[cynic]

Okay with all this mixed DNA, it is amazing that the strongest DNA is said to have a match.

Once again, the word "match" is only as relevant as the number of matching markers which the DA’s investigator, Andy Horita, by my reckoning, was too ashamed to reveal.

Here is an analogy that I’ve used before.
The following is a break out of what it takes to win in the Mega Millions Lottery
5 matches and the Mega ball = Jackpot
5 matches, not including the Mega ball = $250,000
4 matches and the Mega ball = $10,000
4 matches, not including the Mega ball = $150
3 matches and the Mega ball = $150
3 matches, not including the Mega ball = $7
2 matches and the Mega ball = $10
1 matched number and the Mega ball = $3
Match just the Mega ball = $2

You can say you are a winner in the Mega Millions lottery by not revealing the amount of numbers that you matched and consequently the amount of money won.
Let’s say you matched the Mega ball only. Now that technically makes you a winner in the lottery, but obviously the $2 dollar prize is not going to make your dreams come true.
Because Andy Horita was too ashamed to reveal the amount of markers in the touch DNA match, was he simply a $2 “winner” in the “Mega DNA” lottery?

Now I know you have to suggest that ML lied or distorts the truth on that.

The Ramsey were her friends, the evidence speaks for itself.

I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys had effectively withheld medical records from the prosecution during the investigation, and I specifically referred to John Ramsey’s interview of June 1998.51 I felt, that given the above information, we should be revisiting and intensifying our investigation of the involvement of the family. Among other things, we should be seeking the psychiatric records of Burke to determine if he had had any knowledge of the death of his sister, either through a grand jury or by asking the Ramseys for the information. I believed wholeheartedly that this was a viable investigative lead that deserved pursuit. If nothing came of it, then at least we could say that we had covered all of our bases. Mary Lacy’s response is something that I will have difficulty ever forgetting. She told me that she was unwilling to pursue that lead because she ‘didn’t want to harm her relationship with the Ramsey family.’
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 280 – 281

You are making mountains out of molehills.

I prefer to refer to it as a careful evaluation of the evidence.

We have to find the source of somebodys dna here.

Not really, it would be nice, but as I suggested in an earlier post which one of the six profiles is going to satisfy die hard IDI’s.
Would it be one of the three fingernail profiles, perhaps the “garotte profile?”
5 out of 6 maybe?
Or, would it have to be a perfect 6 out of 6?
You have made sourcing the DNA an ultimatum, a condition of belief in anything further to do with RDI. It doesn't have to be, plenty of cases have been prosecuted with unidentified forensic evidence. It is simply discounted as unrelated to the case.
It comes down to how you evaluate the rest of the circumstantial and forensic evidence in the case.

I know you hate it, I hate it, but is this ever going to register.

I hate the fact that it will never be prosecuted barring something spectacular such as a confession from John or Burke.

I am glad I read Kolar's book. It provides a lot more questions and helps us determine more definitively the issues at hand. I understand you have to attack the DNA, it is frustration.

I’m barely breaking a sweat beating up the DNA, it has self destructed. I’m just kicking the pieces around a bit.

Kolar and your theory won't hold, right or wrong bud.

Jim has plainly stated that he doesn’t expect this to lead to any sort of prosecution. His goal was to reveal the truth, which I believe he has. Everyone reading the book is; of course, free to arrive at their own conclusions.

Beckner, Garnett, Lacy, Bode, have a reason to shut out or give more research to Kolar's claims. But he makes some great and not so great points. And here is what is big. If the Ramsey's sue him, they will be deposed and those medical records will be unsealed. I have a lot of disdain for lots of parties. Including the
Ramsey;s. Whether they just left it to their attorney's or not, come on in now.

It would be unfortunate if Jim Kolar were to experience serious financial hardship for those goals to be achieved, but I agree it would be quite an information windfall, I’m sure.
Lin Wood, however, may be many things, but he’s not a fool. Any lawsuit would be a very carefully measured decision and might not happen.