POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

[Jayce]

I am not Solace of course....but, the touch dna could have transferred onto the long johns from the panties. Its called secondary transfer. If you read up on "touch dna" you will see that if you shake hands with someone, and then commit a murder, the person that you shook hands with...DNA ...could be at the scene of the crime. If you touch something...and I touch something after you....I will have YOUR "touch dna" on me. So, its not very accurate...

It couldn't have been secondary transfer. Secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but not with routine testing. They used routine testing for the new DNA.

 

[Jayce]

Now I guarantee AMES, Jayce will reply.

You bet

 

[Jayce]

Hey Tex,

I am not the one touting Henry, Jayce is -- way back there in one of his posts he says Dr. Henry Lee is part of the report that explains touch dna (not verbatim but you get the idea).

I am not touting Henry. I touted a peer-reviewed, scientific study (regarding secondary transfer) conducted by five forensic experts (one of which happed to be Lee). That does not mean I am touting Henry.

 

[Solace]

True

True

Yeah, but I am talking about degradation due to the passage of time. Not some other reason. Show me where Henry says anything about the DNA found in the panties and degradation due to time. Solace, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Dont think so Jayce. I think I am keeping up pretty well considering all the non seqiturs and ad hominems I've been throwing your way.

You claimed that we know that the unknown DNA was deposited before JB's DNA because they were able to define 13 LOCI with JB's and 10 LOCI with the unknown's. This doesn't follow. Even if the unknown DNA is older, you wouldn't be able to tell this by the DNA. There wouldn't have been enough of an elapse in time. I don't claim anything. I am going by what forensics such as your esteemed Dr. Lee has claimed. He said the DNA that is "fractured" I believe or degraded could have been put there by a factory worker - that would have been before the murder took place. Are you telling me that Henry did not mean to imply that the degradation was from time, but from something else?

The reason that they defined 10 LOCI with the unknown DNA is likely because there was a small amount to test.
I think this theory has been invalidated by the new evidence found on the leggings.

So Henry is wrong?

 

[Solace]

I am not touting Henry. I touted a peer-reviewed, scientific study (regarding secondary transfer) conducted by five forensic experts (one of which happed to be Lee). That does not mean I am touting Henry.

Sounded like touting to me, but that could just be a non-sequiter.

Gots to go. It is late. Tomorrow.

 

[Jayce]

Jayce, Darlin, you need to step back and take a breath and think about what you are saying before you are so positive you are correct. There is a lot more to this case then what you are presenting.

Darlin? LOL! Do you normally call other men "Darlin"?

 

[Solace]

Darlin? LOL! Do you normally call other men "Darlin"?

Normally, I use non-sequiturs but in your case I made an exception.

 

[Jayce]

Normally, I use non-sequiters

Well, I wouldn't argue with that.

 

[Jayce]

Sounded like touting to me, but that could just be a non-sequiter. [/B]

Yea, it is.

 

[TexMex]

Hey Tex,

I am not the one touting Henry, Jayce is -- way back there in one of his posts he says Dr. Henry Lee is part of the report that explains touch dna (not verbatim but you get the idea).

Tex, I am debating whether or not this DNA got there by a murderer or whether it got there by some other method. That is a possibility that Jayce disagrees with to say the very least.

Not only did he testify for OJ, he also testified for Spector and frankly made a complete *advertiser censored* out of himself. But Jayce seems to swear by him. (Just kidding Jayce, another non sequitur or ad hominem - you get the idea).

LOL....my bad Solace. I should keep my big ol' Texas size boot outta my mouth.

That said I do agree with Jayce.

 

[cynic]

It couldn't have been secondary transfer. Secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but not with routine testing. They used routine testing for the new DNA.

Not true.

Read it and weep.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2001/stouder.htm

JBR was source for all the unidentified (secondary transfer) DNA found - plain and simple.
Unfortunately the murderer is dead and can never be tried but I'm sure judgment day will be extremely unpleasant for her.

 

[Ames]

It couldn't have been secondary transfer. Secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but not with routine testing. They used routine testing for the new DNA.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here...you said..."It couldn't have been secondary transfer." And that secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but NOT with ROUTINE testing, and that they used ROUTINE testing for the new DNA. SOOOO what you are saying...is that they used rountine testing for the new DNA...but that secondary transfer CANNOT be detected by using routine testing. So, that means...that they didn't use the proper method to detect secondary transfer. Right?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Bottom line for me........

This was not ever a DNA case. Not then and certainly not now. Poor little JonBenet wasn't bathed for days at a time. She came into contact with Lord knows how many people during that time.... I think it's safe to say, LOTS.

 

[Ames]

Bottom line for me........

This was not ever a DNA case. Not then and certainly not now. Poor little JonBenet wasn't bathed for days at a time. She came into contact with Lord knows how many people during that time.... I think it's safe to say, LOTS.

I totally agree!

 

[Jayce]

Not true.

Read it and weep.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2001/stouder.htm

That study doesn't necessarily cast doubt on anything I have said.

This study is more specific and relevant to secondary transfer...
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

Their conclusion..."Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions.
Therefore, our data do not support the inference that the interpretation
of DNA profiles from case samples could be compromised
by secondary transfer."

 

[Jayce]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here...you said..."It couldn't have been secondary transfer." And that secondary transfer can be detected with LCN testing, but NOT with ROUTINE testing, and that they used ROUTINE testing for the new DNA. SOOOO what you are saying...is that they used rountine testing for the new DNA...but that secondary transfer CANNOT be detected by using routine testing. So, that means...that they didn't use the proper method to detect secondary transfer. Right?

It means that the DNA they detected couldn't have been secondary transfer because the test they used (a routine test) couldn't have detected secondary transfer.

They didn't need to use a LCN test because they had enough DNA to do a routine test. If they had enough cells to do a routine test, that means that the DNA wasn't the result of secondary transfer. Secondary transfer wouldn't leave enough cells to do a routine test.

 

[BBB167893]

I think, Jayce, you'll find us resistant, because, for our part, a primary DNA transfer doesn't make sense when viewed through the totality of the case.

 

[Jayce]

I think, Jayce, you'll find us resistant, because, for our part, a primary DNA transfer doesn't make sense when viewed through the totality of the case.

I understand.

 

[BBB167893]

Good. I understand you, as well.

I gotta hand it to you, Jayce: you're as tenacious as a rotweiler on this one subject. But if there's anything else you'd like to say or ask, that's what we're all here for.

 

[robotdog]

Good. I understand you, as well.

I gotta hand it to you, Jayce: you're as tenacious as a rotweiler on this one subject. But if there's anything else you'd like to say or ask, that's what we're all here for.

super dave, im new here but i was just reading and saw where at one point you thought they were innocent


what was the biggest thing that changed your mind ?

thanks,

DOG