A Protest Message

New Posts

Tricia

Tricia

Manager Websleuths.com
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
28,809
Reaction score
43,628
A poster named Aurora went to John Ramsey's announcement rally on Tuesday.

You have to click on this link.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/3299121/detail.html#

Then click on the video, "John Ramsey responds to accusations in JonBenet's death."

There you will see what Aurora and her husband did. Let's just say I have a feeling more "umbrella's" will be showing up around Michigan.

Tricia
ps. If you have Norton Security you may have to turn it off. That's what I had to do to get the Real Player to connect.
 
Aurora you are wonderful! And nice looking too! Too bad no one understands it wasn't fresh dna but degraded dna.
 
Hi ShowMe,

So that means it can't be used to determine a match? What about Midocondrial {sp} DNA. Can degraded DNA be used in that test?



Scandi
 
scandi said:
Hi ShowMe,

So that means it can't be used to determine a match? What about Midocondrial {sp} DNA. Can degraded DNA be used in that test?
Scandi
Click to expand...

Scandi, the "DNA" does not even have a full set of markers. For the DNA to be considered complete and viable, it has to have (at the very least) 13 markers.

The DNA in question was found mixed in a tiny drop of blood found in JBR's underwear. From what has been documented, the DNA has perhaps 9 markers, and maybe half of 10.

That is why it is said to be "old," degraded and not related to the crime. Complete DNA can be extracted from 1,000 year old mummies and fossils. It does not degrade (and lose markers) easily.

Obvously, a complete set of JonBenet's 13 DNA markers was found in the small spot of blood, as well as an additional 9 markers. Where did those extra 9 markers come from, and why are they not complete? If they were deposited at the same time (within the same 24 hours) as JBR's blood, there should be a full set of DNA markers.

This is the primary argument against the DNA being that of some nefarious intruder. In addition, the underwear was apparently new from a package and never washed. This leads LE to wonder if the partial DNA was in the underwear BEFORE it ever touched JonBenet.

Mitochondrial DNA can only be traced through the female line. Burke and JonBenet would have Patsy's mitochondrial DNA, and their maternal grandmother Nedra's MtDNA, and further on back. However, Burke cannot pass on this MtDNA to his children ... it is only passed on by the female.

This presents an interesting sidenote to the assertion that the partial DNA is not that of a "Ramsey male."

If the partial DNA is viewed from the standpoint of MtDNA, that excludes John Ramsey and his son John Andrew Ramsey (who was not a child of Patsy Ramsey). However, it DOES NOT exclude Burke Ramsey. Mitochondrially speaking, Burke is not a "Ramsey" but belongs to the maternal side of Patsy's family.

I am not saying Burke is the source of the partial DNA, I am just pointing out the "word games" sometimes used by lawyers and LE when they try to influence public opinion, or do not wish to make full disclosure of evidence.

IMO
 
Cherokee said:
Scandi, the "DNA" does not even have a full set of markers. For the DNA to be considered complete and viable, it has to have (at the very least) 13 markers.

The DNA in question was found mixed in a tiny drop of blood found in JBR's underwear. From what has been documented, the DNA has perhaps 9 markers, and maybe half of 10.

That is why it is said to be "old," degraded and not related to the crime. Complete DNA can be extracted from 1,000 year old mummies and fossils. It does not degrade (and lose markers) easily.

Obvously, a complete set of JonBenet's 13 DNA markers was found in the small spot of blood, as well as an additional 9 markers. Where did those extra 9 markers come from, and why are they not complete? If they were deposited at the same time (within the same 24 hours) as JBR's blood, there should be a full set of DNA markers.

This is the primary argument against the DNA being that of some nefarious intruder. In addition, the underwear was apparently new from a package and never washed. This leads LE to wonder if the partial DNA was in the underwear BEFORE it ever touched JonBenet.

Mitochondrial DNA can only be traced through the female line. Burke and JonBenet would have Patsy's mitochondrial DNA, and their maternal grandmother Nedra's MtDNA, and further on back. However, Burke cannot pass on this MtDNA to his children ... it is only passed on by the female.

This presents an interesting sidenote to the assertion that the partial DNA is not that of a "Ramsey male."

If the partial DNA is viewed from the standpoint of MtDNA, that excludes John Ramsey and his son John Andrew Ramsey (who was not a child of Patsy Ramsey). However, it DOES NOT exclude Burke Ramsey. Mitochondrially speaking, Burke is not a "Ramsey" but belongs to the maternal side of Patsy's family.

I am not saying Burke is the source of the partial DNA, I am just pointing out the "word games" sometimes used by lawyers and LE when they try to influence public opinion, or do not wish to make full disclosure of evidence.

IMO
Click to expand...


Cherokee,

I DISAGREE with you on one point in your above post and AGREE with you on one point.

I DISAGREE that 13 markers are needed for the crime scene DNA to be a sample that can be considered useable. San Diego, until recently, routinely used just 6 markers to eliminate suspects. The FBI set 13 as the preferred criteria for CODIS in order to keep the number of cases in the system down to a manageable level and to improve the arguments of prosecutors trying to convince a jury they have the right suspect.

I AGREE with you the DNA elimination of "male Ramseys" could technically not include Burke because the authorities may be trickily using the mitochondria DNA method, making Burke a "male Paugh" so to speak, not a male Ramsey. I hadn't thought of that, but it sure falls in line with the other tricks Boulder authorities have sprung, such as trying to make Burke look "cleared" with fraudulent affidavits when he has NEVER been cleared. It also falls in line with Mark Fuhrman's off-the-cuff comment, and tacit approval by Dr. Michael Baden, that the foreign DNA on JonBenet "has Ramsey family markers").

If the authorities did indeed use the mitochondria method of analyzing the foreign DNA on JonBenet and used that to technically and properly say it is "not from a Ramsey male", then that sneaky technique would convince me the foreign DNA is Burke's and therefore Burke likely sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
Cherokee,

I DISAGREE that 13 markers are needed for the crime scene DNA to be a sample that can be considered useable. San Diego, until recently, routinely used just 6 markers to eliminate suspects. The FBI set 13 as the preferred criteria for CODIS in order to keep the number of cases in the system down to a manageable level and to improve the arguments of prosecutors trying to convince a jury they have the right suspect.
Click to expand...

BC, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain in my post. I did not say there had to be 13 markers for the sample to be "useable".

I said, "For the DNA to be considered complete and viable, it has to have (at the very least) 13 markers."

That is the standard set by the FBI, as you pointed out in your post.

Yes, 6 markers can be used to eliminate suspects, but it cannot be used to convict a suspect.

In other words, one of those 6 markers may not be included in a suspect's DNA, and therefore that suspect is eliminated (just as you referenced in San Diego). However, 6 markers is not enough to prove a suspect's guilt or innocence if those 6 are a match because the other 7 are missing, and any one of those missing markers may not be a match to the suspect's DNA.



IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 3,929 (members: 124, guests: 3,805)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
3,805
Total visitors
3,929
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,405
Messages
17,968,476
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top