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

[LI_Mom]

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

And that's where juries come in...

you might vote not guilty but I'm still not convinced by such spotty 'evidence.'

 

[Jayce]

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.

Wow. You are really reaching here. You are letting your theory about the case guide the evidence, rather than letting the evidence guide your theory.

When you have the same man's DNA in three different, distinct locations that you know the killer had contact with, when the DNA is from two different sources (liquid and skin cells), and found on two different articles of clothing, it is extremely likely that it is from the killer.

It is eminently more likely that the DNA is from the killer, than it is that two different sources of DNA from a factory worker was somehow left in her panties and that the skin cells were somehow transferred to her leggings in the same spot that the killer would have touched.

 

[Wudge]

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.

It would appear that they found a lot of DNA on JonBenet's leggings that was left by the killer. Standard DNA testing was used.

 

[Chrishope]

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.

There is nothing certain about it at all. Yesterday, on another thread, I told how my own skin cells could easily end up - innocently- in a kid's underpants. I'll go through it again briefly here.

I work in an elementary school. On a few occasions I've helped kids get dressed for recess, helping them on with their snow pants. In this process I may have to pull up their regular pants to get the snow pants on. That would mean I've touched the waistband of their pants. I've also helped kids wipe spilled milk from their shirt or blouse in the lunch room. In both cases, I have to touch the kids and my skin cells transfer. The kids could then transfer the cells further by touching where I touched and then putting their hands in their underpants. Now, suppose one of these kids is killed in their home. We now have my dna in 3 places on 2 articles of clothing, including underwear. Am I almost certainly the killer?

Do we know what kind of cells we are dealing with in the panties? It's being called "liquid" dna. Does that mean it came from blood, saliva, semen, or does it mean it was transfered in a liquid?

The more important point about the dna is that there was enough to do normal analysis, rather than lcn analysis. But we still don't know how it got there. If it turns out to have an innocent explanation, we are right back where we started. If it turns out to be the dna of someone who was a child at the time, we are back where we started.

Is this enough for a good defense attorney to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors? Sure. Is it enough, as a matter of logic, for detectives (or the DA) to cross someone off the suspect list? No.

 

[Wudge]

wow. You are really reaching here. You are letting your theory about the case guide the evidence, rather than letting the evidence guide your theory.

Snip

titcr

 

[LI_Mom]

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.

It doesn't invalidate.... it either STRENGTHENS the case or it does not.


It is not some far fetched theory to think it's very possible that she scratched one of the little boys at the party (or picked up his dna some other way: saliva, a gooey sneeze, a surface, etc).... she either wiped herself with her unwashed hands & transferred a couple of cells to her vaginal area & then while laying in bed her hand touched her own waistband.

And this doesn't have to be a violent incident.... just kids spending time together.... not even the type of thing anyone might remember because it was such a NON-EVENT. Kind of like when you look at your hand & have no idea where you got a scratch.... it just happened & you never knew.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Is it enough, as a matter of logic, for detectives (or the DA) to cross someone off the suspect list? No.

Yes


HTH

 

[LI_Mom]

There is nothing certain about it at all. Yesterday, on another thread, I told how my own skin cells could easily end up - innocently- in a kid's underpants. I'll go through it again briefly here.

I work in an elementary school. On a few occasions I've helped kids get dressed for recess, helping them on with their snow pants. In this process I may have to pull up their regular pants to get the snow pants on. That would mean I've touched the waistband of their pants. I've also helped kids wipe spilled milk from their shirt or blouse in the lunch room. In both cases, I have to touch the kids and my skin cells transfer. The kids could then transfer the cells further by touching where I touched and then putting their hands in their underpants. Now, suppose one of these kids is killed in their home. We now have my dna in 3 places on 2 articles of clothing, including underwear. Am I almost certainly the killer?

Do we know what kind of cells we are dealing with in the panties? It's being called "liquid" dna. Does that mean it came from blood, saliva, semen, or does it mean it was transfered in a liquid?

The more important point about the dna is that there was enough to do normal analysis, rather than lcn analysis. But we still don't know how it got there. If it turns out to have an innocent explanation, we are right back where we started. If it turns out to be the dna of someone who was a child at the time, we are back where we started.

Is this enough for a good defense attorney to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors? Sure. Is it enough, as a matter of logic, for detectives (or the DA) to cross someone off the suspect list? No.

There was NO semen involved in this case.

The exception being a sample found on an old baby blanket that was in a suitcase & was matched to John's older son. It had NOTHING to do with the JB case though.

 

[Chrishope]

Yes


HTH

Now who's letting theory guide them instead of evidence?

 

[Chrishope]

There was NO semen involved in this case.

The exception being a sample found on an old baby blanket that was in a suitcase & was matched to John's older son. It had NOTHING to do with the JB case though.

Thanks. I'd forgotten that. Do we know if it was blood/saliva, or just what exactly?

 

[Wudge]

Yes


HTH

It's logic that allows unmatched DNA to free prisoners.

HTH

 

[Chrishope]

It's logic that allows unmatched DNA to free prisoners.

HTH

True, but you have to use logic appropriately. You aren't in this situation. You're guessing about things you can't prove, and leaping to conclusions.

 

[Wudge]

True, but you have to use logic appropriately. You aren't in this situation. You're guessing about things you can't prove, and leaping to conclusions.

Cite the fallacy in the condition that says: if unmatched DNA is sufficient to exclude and exonerate prisoners, then unmatched DNA should be sufficient to exclude and exonerate the Ramseys.

 

[LI_Mom]

Cite the fallacy in the condition that says: if unmatched DNA is sufficient to exclude and exonerate prisoners, then unmatched DNA should be sufficient to exclude and exonerate the Ramseys.

The problem with the Ramseys is they are STILL known to be at the scene of the crime.

They contend an intruder entered..... where's the proof & where's the intruder?

 

[Chrishope]

Cite the fallacy in the condition that says: if unmatched DNA is sufficient to exclude and exonerate prisoners, then unmatched DNA should be sufficient to exclude and exonerate the Ramseys.

Simple. It's the difference between creating reasonable doubt for a jury, and knowing for a fact that someone (in this case the Ramseys) couldn't possibly have been the killers. In the case of prisoners set free, there were samples that later were analyzed and it can be shown that the dna is not from the person convicted.

The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt - not that the unindicted Ramseys are going to stand trial. It doesn't mean there is no possible way they could be the killers. (Let me be clear that I'm not saying the Ramseys did it, just that it's a possibility).

You can't logically get from the dna to "no way possible the Rs could have done it" because you don't know with certainty that the dna is from the killer. You can't cross anyone off the list with this evidence. You know the dna isn't from the Ramseys, but you don't know that it is from the killer. Therefore it's not possible to use it to cross anyone of the suspect list.

 

[Jayce]

Yesterday, on another thread, I told how my own skin cells could easily end up - innocently- in a kid's underpants. I'll go through it again briefly here.

I work in an elementary school. On a few occasions I've helped kids get dressed for recess, helping them on with their snow pants. In this process I may have to pull up their regular pants to get the snow pants on. That would mean I've touched the waistband of their pants. I've also helped kids wipe spilled milk from their shirt or blouse in the lunch room. In both cases, I have to touch the kids and my skin cells transfer. The kids could then transfer the cells further by touching where I touched and then putting their hands in their underpants. Now, suppose one of these kids is killed in their home. We now have my dna in 3 places on 2 articles of clothing, including underwear. Am I almost certainly the killer?

You have indeed explained how your DNA could end up, innocently, in a kid's underpants. However, this is not particulary relevant to the Ramsey case, or the new evidence. First, you keep ignoring that the DNA evidence was found in the same locations that we know the killer must have had contact with. This is extremely compelling evidence. If the DNA had been found in some other location, perhaps it wouldn't have meant as much. But, as I will keep repeating, the DNA was found in the exact places that we know the killer had contact with!

Also, as I earlier said, we are talking about two different sources of DNA, which rules out some type of transference.

Do we know what kind of cells we are dealing with in the panties? It's being called "liquid" dna. Does that mean it came from blood, saliva, semen, or does it mean it was transfered in a liquid?

The DNA was from some sort of liquid, which if I am not mistaken, was never revealed (or maybe discovered).

 

[oceanblueeyes]

True, but you have to use logic appropriately. You aren't in this situation. You're guessing about things you can't prove, and leaping to conclusions.

Why is that? There is DNA evidence found in three different areas on the clothing the victim was wearing the night she was murdered. It is the same unknown male DNA in all three. The odds of a liquid type of DNA (sweat, saliva etc) being found and then the skin cells of the same person in different areas of the clothing is astronomically compelling imo.

I don't understand why it is different. It is the same premise when someone has been convicted and later DNA testing shows another DNA profile on the victim or their clothing. They are exonerated by that type of evidence when it is discovered. The justice system does not have to have a replacement killer to exonerate someone. Sometimes the real suspect may be known to them by then and sometimes they have to start cold turkey hoping to match the DNA profile one day through CODIS.

imoo

 

[Wudge]

Simple. It's the difference between creating reasonable doubt for a jury, and knowing for a fact that someone (in this case the Ramseys) couldn't possibly have been the killers.

The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt - not that the unindicted Ramseys are going to stand trial. It doesn't mean there is no possible way they could be the killers. (Let me be clear that I'm not saying the Ramseys did it, just that it's a possibility).

You can't logically get from the dna to "no way possible the Rs could have done it" because you don't know with certainty that the dna is from the killer. You can't cross anyone off the list with this evidence.

You said: "The dna in this case raises reasonable doubt."

That is correct.

I said: "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."

That is also correct.

Please note that both you and I adhere to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as the standard that makes DNA, by itself, exonerating evidence.


HTH

 

[Chrishope]

You have indeed explained how your DNA could end up, innocently, in a kid's underpants. However, this is not particulary relevant to the Ramsey case, or the new evidence. First, you keep ignoring that the DNA evidence was found in the same locations that we know the killer must have had contact with. This is extremely compelling evidence. If the DNA had been found in some other location, perhaps it wouldn't have meant as much. But, as I will keep repeating, the DNA was found in the exact places that we know the killer had contact with!

Also, as I earlier said, we are talking about two different sources of DNA, which rules out some type of transference.

The DNA was from some sort of liquid, which if I am not mistaken, was never revealed (or maybe discovered).

Re: locations. My example shows that my skin cell dna could end up in the exact locations - waistband and undies- where a killer would have touched the child. I would have touched the waistband myself, and transference could have taken the cells to the underwear.

Does the existence of two sources of DNA really rule out transfer? I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically. Is it possible the dna is from a male child who attended the Christmas party?

As an aside, and others have already asked this too, why is there no dna from PR when we know she touched the long johns ?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The problem with the Ramseys is they are STILL known to be at the scene of the crime.

They contend an intruder entered..... where's the proof & where's the intruder?

Many murderers are never caught. About 65% of cases are solved from the last article that I read about it.

They don't have to prove anything. It is up to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was not an intruder. They are they ones that cant prove the case because if they could this would have gone to trial against the Ramseys long ago.

imoo