Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[Wudge]

Hmm, well maybe we have different conceptions of exoneration. To me evidence either exonerates someone, or it doesn't. IMO, this doesn't.

It's not compelling evidence of an intruder, it merely means there is dna in 3 palces on two articles of clothing. We don't know how it got there. We don't know that JBR didn't transfer it there herself.

The DNA found on JonBenet came in two forms. A liquid based DNA was found on her underwear. Touch based DNA was found in two different places on her leggings.

This triple-sourced DNA matched. DNA is exonerating evidence. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt that non-donars should be excluded. Therefore, the Ramseys are both excluded and exonerated.


HTH

 

[Wudge]

You know.... if they keep doing these INCOMPLETE dna tests on items that started out with TINY amounts of evidence, it won't be long before they have NO SAMPLE left if the case ever gets to trial.

Any decent defense attorney will demand to run his own independent tests to verify the prosecution's findings.

LCN DNA does not mean the test results will have a low number of matching markers. It's the number of matching markers that matters far beyond anything else.

HTH

 

[Chrishope]

The DNA found on JonBenet came in two forms. A liquid based DNA was found on her underwear. Touch based DNA was found in two different places on her leggings.

This triple-sourced DNA matched. DNA is exonerating evidence. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt that non-donars should be excluded. Therefore, the Ramseys are both excluded and exonerated.


HTH

How do you figure it to be exonerating? You don't know who it belongs to (we know it's a male) and we don't know how it got there. On what basis do you conclude that the dna in question must (as opposed to may) be from the killer?

 

[Jayce]

Hmm, well maybe we have different conceptions of exoneration.

No. You just keep misunderstanding my original statement.

To me evidence either exonerates someone, or it doesn't. IMO, this doesn't.

Evidence can increase of decrease the likelihood of a person being guilty of a crime. In this case, the evidence significantly decreases the likelihood that the Ramsey's are guilty ....aka "going a long way to exonerating them". The reason that I wouldn't say that it completely exonerates them is that there is still the possibility, although very remote, that the Ramsey's were in collusion with the unidentified third party.

It's not compelling evidence of an intruder, it merely means there is dna in 3 palces on two articles of clothing. We don't know how it got there. We don't know that JBR didn't transfer it there herself.

Yes it is. Its DNA from the same unidentified male in places where the killer almost certainly touched.

 

[Jayce]

LCN DNA does not mean the test results will have a low number of matching markers. It's the number of matching markers that matters far beyond anything else.

HTH

Also, there was enough of the newly found DNA to process it in a routine way.

 

[Chrishope]

No. You just keep misunderstanding my original statement.Evidence can increase of decrease the likelihood of a person being guilty of a crime. In this case, the evidence significantly decreases the likelihood that the Ramsey's are guilty ....aka "going a long way to exonerating them". The reason that I wouldn't say that it completely exonerates them is that there is still the possibility, although very remote, that the Ramsey's were in collusion with the unidentified third party.

Well we disagree. We have no idea where this dna came from and how it got there. It needn't be from the killer. It may be. It's not a given.

Yes it is. Its DNA from the same unidentified male in places where the killer almost certainly touched.

We don't know it to be from the killer. We know it to be from an unidentified male. We don't even know if it's from an adult male. This kind of evidence simply cannot exonerate -anyone. If CODIS gives us a match, we have a good suspect. It's not enough by itself for a conviction.

 

[LI_Mom]

No. You just keep misunderstanding my original statement.Evidence can increase of decrease the likelihood of a person being guilty of a crime. In this case, the evidence significantly decreases the likelihood that the Ramsey's are guilty ....aka "going a long way to exonerating them". The reason that I wouldn't say that it completely exonerates them is that there is still the possibility, although very remote, that the Ramsey's were in collusion with the unidentified third party.

Yes it is. Its DNA from the same unidentified male in places where the killer almost certainly touched.

It's still a leap to assume beyond a reasonable doubt the dna could not have been transfered from JB's own finger to her own body.

Why didn't they test EVERY male at the party... even the boys so they could rule out "innocent" dna to the best of their ability?

Why won't they test OTHER articles that we know for SURE were used during the attack?

What are they afraid of finding?

 

[Wudge]

How do you figure it to be exonerating? You don't know who it belongs to (we know it's a male) and we don't know how it got there. On what basis do you conclude that the dna in question must (as opposed to may) be from the killer?

It's exonerating evidence, because there is no evidence that supports the matching DNA got on JonBenet's leggings and clothing other than by having come from the person who killed JonBenet. Hence, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Wudge]

It's still a leap to assume beyond a reasonable doubt the dna could not have been transfered from JB's own finger to her own body.

Why didn't they test EVERY male at the party... even the boys so they could rule out "innocent" dna to the best of their ability?

Why won't they test OTHER articles that we know for SURE were used during the attack?

What are they afraid of finding?

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities. They needed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more. And that was provided by the thrice matched DNA.

 

[Chrishope]

It's exonerating evidence, because there is no evidence that supports the matching DNA got on JonBenet's leggings and clothing other than by having come from the person who killed JonBenet. Hence, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nonsense! There might be some other explanation for how it got there. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that it MUST be from the killer. It may be, but that isn't a given. This doesn't eliminate anyone.

 

[Wudge]

Nonsense! There might be some other explanation for how it got there. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that it MUST be from the killer. It may be, but that isn't a given. This doesn't eliminate anyone.

There have been many wrongfully convicted prisoners exonerated and released from prison, because unmatched DNA excluded them.

HTH

 

[Ames]

Nonsense! There might be some other explanation for how it got there. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that it MUST be from the killer. It may be, but that isn't a given. This doesn't eliminate anyone.[/quote]

No it doesn't. I read where the panties and the longjohns were tested because it was known for sure that the killer touched them....well "he" for sure.also touched alot of other things too.....the blanket that she was wrapped in just for example....the garotte (cord and paintbrush handle)....Those need to be tested too! I am so mad I could spit!

 

[Ames]

There have been many wrongfully convicted prisoners exonerated and released from prison, because unmatched DNA excluded them.

HTH

Maybe so, but just because there is unknown male dna on her panties and longjohns...that doesn't mean that this unknown male is the killer. It could have came from anybody. Those panties had degraded DNA...that was said that could have possibly came from a panty factory worker...that DNA could have been transferred to her longjohns....via secondary transfer. It can happen with touch DNA...look it up. It also can be transferred if someone touches something...and then someone else touches the same object..or by shaking hands. Doesn't sound like airtight evidence, if you ask me.

 

[Wudge]

Nonsense! There might be some other explanation for how it got there. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that it MUST be from the killer. It may be, but that isn't a given. This doesn't eliminate anyone.[/quote]

No it doesn't. I read where the panties and the longjohns were tested because it was known for sure that the killer touched them....well "he" for sure.also touched alot of other things too.....the blanket that she was wrapped in just for example....the garotte (cord and paintbrush handle)....Those need to be tested too! I am so mad I could spit!

The cord underwent prior testing. I suspect there are contamination concerns.

 

[Chrishope]

There have been many wrongfully convicted prisoners exonerated and released from prison, because unmatched DNA excluded them.

HTH

True, but at the same time irrelevant. In this situation, the dna doesn't eliminate anyone as the killer because we don't know that the dna is from the killer.

 

[Wudge]

Maybe so, but just because there is unknown male dna on her panties and longjohns...that doesn't mean that this unknown male is the killer. It could have came from anybody. Those panties had degraded DNA...that was said that could have possibly came from a panty factory worker...that DNA could have been transferred to her longjohns....via secondary transfer. It can happen with touch DNA...look it up. It also can be transferred if someone touches something...and then someone else touches the same object..or by shaking hands. Doesn't sound like airtight evidence, if you ask me.

They did not find DNA from any of the Ramsey family on her leggings or underwear, just unmatched DNA.

 

[Jayce]

Well we disagree. We have no idea where this dna came from and how it got there. It needn't be from the killer. It may be. It's not a given.



We don't know it to be from the killer. We know it to be from an unidentified male. We don't even know if it's from an adult male. This kind of evidence simply cannot exonerate -anyone. If CODIS gives us a match, we have a good suspect. It's not enough by itself for a conviction.

You are drastically downplaying the DNA evidence. What are the odds that in the three distinct places (on 2 different articles of clothing) that we know the killer had contact with, the same unidentified males' DNA was found? And remember, we are talking about 2 different sources of DNA (one from a liquid, and one from skin cells).

It is almost certain that the owner of the DNA is the killer. There is no other good, reasonable explanation.

 

[Wudge]

True, but at the same time irrelevant. In this situation, the dna doesn't eliminate anyone as the killer because we don't know that the dna is from the killer.

We know the DNA is not from any Ramsey family member. It's certainly reasonable to believe the killer lowered JonBenet's leggings. Since that is reasonable, by excluding the Ramseys you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That makes it exonerating evidence.

 

[Ames]

They did not find DNA from any of the Ramsey family on her leggings or underwear, just unmatched DNA.

How could that be? Patsy Ramsey is the one that placed the longjohns on JB the night she went to bed. Her DNA would have HAD to have been on them. Read Patsy's interview...if you haven't already. Patsy says that SHE put those long johns on a sleeping JB. She at first says also...that she placed the red turtleneck (the one that the police found balled up on the bathroom counter in JB's bathroom), on her to sleep in, but then changed her story to...she left the shirt on her that she wore to the Whites, because she didn't want to wake her up.

 

[Jayce]

No it doesn't. I read where the panties and the longjohns were tested because it was known for sure that the killer touched them....well "he" for sure.also touched alot of other things too.....the blanket that she was wrapped in just for example....the garotte (cord and paintbrush handle)....Those need to be tested too! I am so mad I could spit!

I agree that, if possible, the other items should be tested. But the fact that they haven't does not, in any way, invalidate the new touch DNA evidence.