4/19/04 Globe: DNA is saliva and mucous from runny nose

[Shylock]

I don't think it's quite the same thing. For a finger print to be on a gun, the gun MUST have been n contact with the finger. DNA can be transferred via a 3rd party.

DNA can be transfered by the wind--best not to stand too near someone with dandruff! :sick:

"When this cross-contamination occurs it can make one sample look like the other, or more commonly, make the two DNA patterns appear in the same sample. [FN78] Cross- contamination is especially dangerous in PCR DNA typing. [FN79] In fact, PCR is so sensitive that if one vial of blood is opened in proximity to another, the open vial can create an aerosol that can actually contaminate the other sample, making the two seem identical. This is especially troublesome because it may be impossible to tell from the DNA test that contamination has occurred. The sample is not changed or mutated; rather, both DNA patterns become present in the one sample."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ontamination+opened+vial+blood&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[BlueCrab]

Good observation, BlueCrab. Yes, the DNA found in the panties could very well belong to Donald Trump. He was known to shop at Bloomingdales with his daughter Ivanka, who was a skinny 14 year old at the time of the Ramsey murder and would have fit nicely into the size-12 panties. If "The Donald" was shopping with a cold, and sneezed in the underwear aisle, the mystery is solved.

Impossible? - Not at all. That's why the DNA is totally useless to this case.
From Sum Yung Gai to The Donald--swab em all!

IMO

Nice rebuttal Shylock. But I'm gonna go the route of Occam's Razor and theorize the DNA in the crotch of JonBenet's panties is not from Donald Trump. I think it was from saliva and mucus deposited by the killer.

JMO

 

[SisterSocks]

You quoted K777Angel but addressed your comment to me. That doesn't show you're thinking too well at all, Socks... LOL!
Why don't you make yourself a cup of strong coffee and try again later.:banghead:

IMO

Please Shy don't bang your head in the wall about a mistake .

Love Coffee drink as much as I can yanno?

 

[why_nutt]

Nice rebuttal Shylock. But I'm gonna go the route of Occam's Razor and theorize the DNA in the crotch of JonBenet's panties is not from Donald Trump. I think it was from saliva and mucus deposited by the killer.

JMO

Occam's Razor would not work for the theory of a killer depositing saliva and mucous. You then have to bring in a more complicated theory of the case which involves the killer freshly shedding those body fluids on the fabric of the underwear on the night of December 25th, and then those fluids making their way under JonBenet's nails but not onto her genitalia. You also have to explain why the environmental conditions of the vicinity preserved JonBenet's own DNA but degraded the foreign DNA, and not only degraded it, but degraded it at a different rate from one spot on the underwear to the next, and further, degraded it at a radically different rate inside the underwear and under the nails. That is too much complication for Occam's Razor to handle.

 

[Cherokee]

Occam's Razor would not work for the theory of a killer depositing saliva and mucous. You then have to bring in a more complicated theory of the case which involves the killer freshly shedding those body fluids on the fabric of the underwear on the night of December 25th, and then those fluids making their way under JonBenet's nails but not onto her genitalia. You also have to explain why the environmental conditions of the vicinity preserved JonBenet's own DNA but degraded the foreign DNA, and not only degraded it, but degraded it at a different rate from one spot on the underwear to the next, and further, degraded it at a radically different rate inside the underwear and under the nails. That is too much complication for Occam's Razor to handle.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

And if the little emoticon guy had legs, I'd have him give you a standing ovation.

Degraded DNA that does not have the full compliment of markers IS NOT evidence of anything, and especially not evidence of who did what to JonBenet.

DNA deposited THAT NIGHT (during whatever happened to JonBenet) WOULD HAVE THE FULL SET OF MARKERS. It would be fresh, it would not be degraded, and it would be complete.

Sheesh. I get tired of this same old DNA argument. You can't have one complete (and fresh) DNA and one degraded DNA mixed together and say they are from the same event.

It's basic forensic science ... ask any archaeologist. You may find many different layers of civilization mixed together one upon the other. Just because they are jumbled together doesn't mean they came from the same strata, same period of history, same event. Something has impacted the site, and you have to separate the different layers carefully for clues.

We've been given the clues. JBR's DNA is fresh and complete. The "foreign" DNA is degraded and incomplete. DNA experts say it's not a DNA case. It's a dead end, it has nothing to do with what happened to JonBenet. It's a red herring that gets up and walks on its wobbly fins at the command of Lin Wood and the Ramseys because it's the last diversion away from themselves.




IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

DNA deposited THAT NIGHT (during whatever happened to JonBenet) WOULD HAVE THE FULL SET OF MARKERS. It would be fresh, it would not be degraded, and it would be complete.

Cherokee,

I respectfully disagree. Fresh DNA can be degraded by the environment that it's in, not just by time.

JonBenet's 13 markers were easy to determine because it was her blood and there were likely millions of her samples to choose from. The foreign DNA was not likely blood and there was only one identifiable trace of it (10 markers). The miniscule amount of foreign DNA (most likely saliva) had obviously been degraded by the environment it was in (mixed with JonBenet's blood in the panties -- if that's where it was found).

It's either a DNA case or LE has been throwing away thousands of dollars on DNA tests for nothing. Every possible suspect has apparently been tested, including children.

JMO

 

[Honeybee]

.

. (Ivy and I have pooled our money and bet on Sum Yung Gai...)

Do you get eggrolls with Sum Yung Gai?

 

[Ivy]

No, but he sneezes in our underwear, which is fun.

imo

 

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

I respectfully disagree. Fresh DNA can be degraded by the environment that it's in, not just by time.

JonBenet's 13 markers were easy to determine because it was her blood and there were likely millions of her samples to choose from. The foreign DNA was not likely blood and there was only one identifiable trace of it (10 markers). The miniscule amount of foreign DNA (most likely saliva) had obviously been degraded by the environment it was in (mixed with JonBenet's blood in the panties -- if that's where it was found).

It's either a DNA case or LE has been throwing away thousands of dollars on DNA tests for nothing. Every possible suspect has apparently been tested, including children.

JMO

And BC, I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

First of all, I realize DNA can be degraded by factors other than time. That wasn't the point of my post.

You said, >The miniscule amount of foreign DNA (most likely saliva) had obviously been degraded by the environment it was in (mixed with JonBenet's blood in the panties -- if that's where it was found).<

Once again ... the incomplete "foreign" DNA could not have been degraded by the environment it was in (as you put it) if JonBenet's DNA was not degraded. In other words, if the DNA of both donors was deposited at the same time (within the same 24 hours), whatever agent degraded one would degrade the other.

Complete non-degraded DNA can be extracted from 1,000 year old mummies. So what environment would make a "fresh" DNA deposit degrade so dramatically as to be incomplete when there is a full DNA deposit in the same location? Answer: It is scientifically impossible. If one is degraded by an agent, the other will be degraded by that same agent UNLESS THEY WERE DEPOSITED WITHIN A DIFFERENT TIME FRAME. Which is exactly my whole point. The degraded DNA was not deposited on the night JonBenet died.

Yes, LE has thrown away thousands of dollars on DNA testing because if they didn't, Lin Wood and the Ramseys would be down their throats screaming about the DNA not being tested. Never mind that it is degraded and worthless.



IMO

 

[Shylock]

BlueCrab, Cherokee has very valid points about the DNA being degraded but JBR's wasn't. I think your idea about the foreign DNA being from saliva that night is way off base. How could it get degraded in that little time? Here's a case story about a tiny amount of DNA found on a cigarette butt that was good enough THREE YEARS after the crime to identify the killer:

"The parents of murdered teenager Louise Sellars have praised the DNA technology which helped jail their daughter's killer.
Darren Ashurst, 26, was given a life sentence after being linked to the student's death by a cigarette butt found at the scene in 1995.
The jury of nine men and three women at Manchester Crown Court heard there was a one in 83 million chance that saliva on the butt found by Louise's battered body was not Ashurst's.
Detectives investigating the case did not give up and they kept hold of the cigarette butt and retested it following breakthroughs in testing in 1999."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1002593.stm

 

[DocWatson]

Shylock,

Occam's Razor says nope. That's a diversion and highly unlikely. This was a sexual murder. The source of the DNA found in the crotch of JonBenet's panties was most likely saliva and mucus deposited by her killer during oral sex.

JMO

BC, I think the time has come for you to succinctly state your theory of the case since the instant you do, all of us will be instantly able to see that it does not hang together. You have offered lots of contradictory strands: in all cases the 5th person is an invited guest of Burke's, but I hope you can agree that there's a world of difference between
a) "playing doctor" between kids 3 years apart in age (one end of the continuum);
b) an AEA "game" instigated between those same 2 kids by an older teen or young adult;
c) an AEA "game" involving an older teen/young adult and a 6-year old;
d) a sexual assault involving oral sex and vaginal penetration with a paintbrush of a 6-year old by a teen/young adult, and
e) a deliberate sexual assault and intentional murder motivated by a political agenda.
Based on the "clues" you've tossed out, one could credibly deduce that you believe any one of these disparate theories. But since the DNA evidence rules out all male Ramseys as being the oral sex perp, this suggests that we are far closer to the sexual assault end of the continuum than innocent sex game end of it. In that context, it is HIGHLY implausible either that the parents would be motivated to cover up for a non-family member engaged in such outrageous activity on their own precious daughter and even if they attempted to do so, it borders on the ABSURD to believe that the GJ knowingly looked the other way merely to spare Burke and the family some embarrassment. To believe further that the BPD, DA's office, a federal judge and other elements of LE have knowingly gone along with this cover-up takes us into the domain of the NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The fact is that any of the scenarios b) through e) entail Burke's being exploited by the teen/adult to either engage in behavior he arguably would have never done on his own or was effectively forced to watch as his older "friend" engaged in this same despicable behavior towards his own sister.
To effectively look the other way and risk having this perp repeat this sick behavior on some other 6-year would have been unconscionable. While I believe mistakes clearly were made in this case, I have a far higher opinion of the motivations of LE in this case than you apparently do.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I really don't think basing a discussion on tabloid stories is a worthwhile enterprise, but if saliva and mucous are actually the source of male DNA, the killer may have wiped his hand across a nose that was running (as many noses do) in the cold December night air. Then saliva/mucous could transfer from his hand to the underwear when he handled it--pulling it up/down, or putting his hand into it.

 

[BlueCrab]

Doc Watson,

I develop theories based on what credible evidence is known. Since there are things in this case we aren't aware of, how can I or anyone else develop a "succinct" theory, all in one neat little package? It can't be done.

With respect to the oral sex aspect, it was Ramsey private investigator Ollie Gray who said the DNA in the panties was from saliva and mucus. If that's true, then just how do YOU suspect the saliva and mucus got there?

JMO

 

[Shylock]

With respect to the oral sex aspect, it was Ramsey private investigator Ollie Gray who said the DNA in the panties was from saliva and mucus. If that's true, then just how do YOU suspect the saliva and mucus got there?

BlueCrab, let's not selectively grab someone's words who was either misquoted or obviously doesn't know what he was talking about. Yes, Gray DID say "saliva and mucus", but he also said "sweat and tears".
Either Gray was just stating the possible sources for the DNA, or the guy is a DNA moron--in which case why would you want to quote him?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Just because a tabloid "quotes" someone it doesn't mean that the quote is accurate, or even approaches being their actual words. I have no confidence that Ollie Gray was actually interviewed, actually gave a statement, or if he said anything to a tabloid reporter that he was accurately quoted.

There was dried saliva and mucous on JonBenét's face, and on her shirt. That's probably about as close to the truth this tabloid article even approaches.

 

[BlueCrab]

Just because a tabloid "quotes" someone it doesn't mean that the quote is accurate, or even approaches being their actual words. I have no confidence that Ollie Gray was actually interviewed, actually gave a statement, or if he said anything to a tabloid reporter that he was accurately quoted.

There was dried saliva and mucous on JonBenét's face, and on her shirt. That's probably about as close to the truth this tabloid article even approaches.

LP,

The saliva and mucus on JonBenet's face and shirt was from JonBenet. That kind of discharge is natural after death. However, there is one troubling possibility with that discharge -- was it the source of the mysterious foreign DNA-X? IOW, even though it has been widely believed that no semen was found at the crime scene, did the discharge contain a trace of semen?

JMO

 

[K777angel]

LP,

The saliva and mucus on JonBenet's face and shirt was from JonBenet. That kind of discharge is natural after death. However, there is one troubling possibility with that discharge -- was it the source of the mysterious foreign DNA-X? IOW, even though it has been widely believed that no semen was found at the crime scene, did the discharge contain a trace of semen?

JMO

What are you saying Bluecrab? We've been "told" that there was no semen found at the crime scene.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

According to the autopsy report the saliva and mucuous on JonBenét's face was not "hemorrhagic".

Bill Nagel's notes, released with the Colorado search warrants confirms that there was no semen or seminal fluid found on JonBenét. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/search10.html Notes from Bill Nagel


Beckner's deposition, where the existence of "DNA-X" was revealed, tells us that the DNA-X was not found on JonBenét's body.

 

[Jayelles]

Just because a tabloid "quotes" someone it doesn't mean that the quote is accurate, or even approaches being their actual words. I have no confidence that Ollie Gray was actually interviewed, actually gave a statement, or if he said anything to a tabloid reporter that he was accurately quoted.

There was dried saliva and mucous on JonBenét's face, and on her shirt. That's probably about as close to the truth this tabloid article even approaches.

All secondary teachers have to do a stint in primary schools during teacher training here. I recall when I did my session in Primary 1 that one little darling climbed onto my knee and his snotty nose brushed against my blouse. It was quite revolting!

Snot travels.

 

[Toth]

Snot travels.

When it travels to a six year old girl's panties and the skin beneath her fingernails it revolting too.