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

[Ivy]

I wonder if a sample of Doug Stine's DNA was taken.

imo

 

[BlueCrab]

I wonder if a sample of Doug Stine's DNA was taken.

imo

Yes, Doug Stine's DNA was taken. It's in DOI. And please don't forget, Lou Smit has been known to say that the Stine boy should be looked at.

JMO

 

[Afton]

Also, "... police would be able to connect a SECOND person to the murder."

Who was the FIRST person connected to the murder?

JMO

Schiller'b Book: Page 573--On November 14, the grand jury met for the fourteenth time. That week the CBI leaked to a journalist that the DNA of a second person and possibly a third person---had been discovered on JonBenet's underpants. Even though the Police and the CBI had known this since February 1997, the CBI was now using a new PCR-21-band DNA testing method in the hope of finding a match."

 

[KaaBooo]

...since when did we believe everything the Globe says anyway...? Nothing's changed IMO...

 

[Afton]

Since the Globe had the Ramseys as their main suspects, I hardly think they would then reverse themselves...And I also think that Schiller had checked his sources and did not rely on the info from a tabloid reporter...Schiller's book was credible IMO and if you think not, then we have to disagree.

Here are some quotes that I collected when his book first came out. You can dismiss them or accept them...It seems he did a thorough job at the time he wrote his book collecting what was known about the DNA...

p. 126: describes RFLP and PCR tests. It is important that tests do not comsume all of the sample.
P.139: CBI, stain in panties contains DNA of more than one person possibly two. Further testing will take several months.

P.184: DISO DNA test used, and stain from at least two different sources.

p. 237; DNA does not match McReynold's and material underneath the nails shows signs of contamination and the origin of contamination has yet to be determined. (Note the word yet.)

p. 336: PD refuse to share the result of DNA tests with DA

p.435: DB DNA expert explains tests and said it DID NOT match the Ramseys.

p. 437: DNA under nails found to be contaminated (my note: that it does not say the panty DNA was contaminated nor degraded.)

p. 573: Feb 14th - GJ meets for 14th gtime and CBI leaked to a journalist that there was DNA of a second person and possible a third. PD have know n this since Feb. 97. CBI now using a new PCR-21 band DNA in hopes of finding a match

p. 576: underpants contained mixed DNA (foreign) second and possibly a third person's DNA

p. 435 - 436: CBI expert said John & Patsy's DNA didn't match fingernails . CBI advised to check all playmates and

p.515: Scheck's comment You can't say the tests results are iffy and exclude certain people.

 

[BlueCrab]

...since when did we believe everything the Globe says anyway...? Nothing's changed IMO...

Wrangler and KaaBoo,

The discussion on this thread has changed to Afton's posts about Schiller's 1998 interview of Alex Hunter in The New Yorker. Larry Schiller is not a tab reporter, and The New Yorker is a highly respected magazine.

Afton,

I agree with what you're posting; and even though it's all been known before, it's making the DNA evidence appear to be a more significant factor to consider in this crime than some people want to admit.

By using Alex Hunter's quotes, the way I recap it to this point is: John and Patsy are eliminated as contributing the foreign DNA and there's ONE person who perhaps may already be identified by the DNA and a SECOND person (and maybe a third) being searched for by using mouth swab DNA samples being taken from potential suspects.

Of course, we're now gonna start hearing from the web "stutter" experts, the "degraded DNA" experts, and the "only 10 markers" experts. Please Occam, come to my rescue if it starts.

JMO

 

[KaaBooo]

Well, Blue Crab, if your discussion has evolved more than we have, you have your discussion and don't worry about me and Wrangler, who have stayed on topic. You discuss Schiller all you ant, no need to patronize other posters.

Point still stands - nothing has changed. The DNA "evidence" is worthless now, was worthless in 1998 and was worthless in 1996.

 

[Shylock]

Of course, we're now gonna start hearing from the web "stutter" experts, the "degraded DNA" experts, and the "only 10 markers" experts. Please Occam, come to my rescue if it starts.

Occam has been dead too long to be tested, his DNA is fully degraded.

The mystery DNA either belongs to Sum Yung Gai, or Donald Trump. Either way it will never be matched and is a dead issue.

 

[BlueCrab]

Well, Blue Crab, if your discussion has evolved more than we have, you have your discussion and don't worry about me and Wrangler, who have stayed on topic. You discuss Schiller all you ant, no need to patronize other posters.

Point still stands - nothing has changed. The DNA "evidence" is worthless now, was worthless in 1998 and was worthless in 1996.

KaBooo,

I didn't wander off topic. The topic is DNA, and that's what Schiller's 1998 article in The New Yorker was mostly about. It's important to revisit some of these older statements, especially Hunter's comments in this article.

Hunter said that both John and Patsy are eliminated as the donors of the foreign DNA and, "Even though it is a long shot, if a swab sample did provide a DNA match to the DNA taken from JonBenet's body, then police would be able to connect a SECOND person to the murder".

So who is the FIRST person connected to the murder? According to Hunter's statement, the cops obviously have the male DNA, and perhaps even know the identity, of the first person. Now they're looking for a second person whose male DNA matches that on JonBenet's body so that he too can be connected to the murder.

If someone can't appreciate the significance of Hunter's comments then that someone doesn't want to solve this case or they are blinded by stubbornly refusing to recognize anything that doesn't fit their personal theory of the crime.

JMO

 

[Toth]

The DNA "evidence" is worthless now, was worthless in 1998 and was worthless in 1996.

It seems strange to me why you would consider the most reliable forensic evidence ever developed to be 'worthless'.

 

[Barbara]

It seems strange to me why you would consider the most reliable forensic evidence ever developed to be 'worthless'.

While it is the most reliable forensic evidence in many cases, it is not in THIS case. In this case, it will prove to be non evidence, just another red herring without all the other elements to prove who the murderer was.

Will you still state your above claim if the DNA turns out (with better science still ahead of us) to be a Ramsey or a Paugh?

 

[Toth]

Will you still state your above claim if the DNA turns out (with better science still ahead of us) to be a Ramsey or a Paugh?

Its already been clearly determined that it is neither a Ramsey's dna nor a Paugh's dna.

 

[Toth]

And please don't forget, Lou Smit has been known to say that the Stine boy should be looked at.

I've not heard Lou Smit say that: do you have any sort of citation for such a comment?

 

[Shylock]

Its already been clearly determined that it is neither a Ramsey's dna nor a Paugh's dna.

That's right, and it's already been determined that it probably belongs to Sum Yung Gai or Donald Trump.
That means the DNA is totally MEANINGLESS to this case.

Try repeating these words to yourself, Toth:

"This is NOT a DNA case."
"This is NOT a DNA case."
"This is NOT a DNA case."
"This is NOT a DNA case."
"This is NOT a DNA case."...

 

[Spade]

Lou Smit told me that Doug Stine should: "Be looked at closely." It was in response to a series of questions about the "intruder". I asked if the "intruder" could have been a juvenile guest of Burke's and Smit replied: "Absolutely". I then asked if the intruder could have been Doug Stine, and Smit responded with: " Doug Stine should be looked at closely". The interview took place at Smit's Colorado Springs home in November 1999. Barb Smit, God rest her soul, and my wife were also present.

 

[Islander]

Spade: I have no reason to doubt anything you have posted, but something about what Smit said doesn’t add up in my opinion. On September 20, 1998, Smit submitted his resignation letter to Hunter stating that he “cannot in good conscience be a part of the persecution of innocent people.” Then in November 1999, he tells you that there is a possibility that the intruder could have been a guest of Burke’s and that Doug Stine should be looked at closely. I believe that after his discussion with you, Smit continued to profess his belief that the Ramseys were innocent.

I can think of two possibilities for this apparent contradiction. One, you stated your discussion was in a social setting. Perhaps, Smit told you what he thought you wanted to hear to avoid an argument in front of the wives. He may have been thinking that anything is possible and let it go at that.

Two, perhaps he is not the great detective we all have heard about. His statement that Doug should be looked at closely tells me that Smit believed that had not yet happened. If he thought an investigation was needed and there was the possibility of Doug’s involvement, he had to also think:
(1) there was the possibility of the Ramseys being involved in at least the cover-up of the crime, and, therefore, not innocent; or (2) the two boys were potential master criminals, being able to author the ransom note and keep their dark secret from parents and others all these years.

It is now over 4 years since Smit and you had that conversation. From what I have read, Smit has been continuously working on this case part-time. If he was sincere in his statement to you, he certainly had the time and, since joining the Keenan team, the means to conduct an investigation of Doug. Do you know if he did this?

 

[Spade]

Another possibility is that Smit was/is a MOLE in the Ramsey camp. People that I personally respect consider Lou Smit a "disgrace to hardworking police officers" and "The spy who was too stupid to come in from the cold."

The 1999 interview was not a social meeting. We spent 4+ hours discussing the Ramsey case. If you want to know what Smit has done over the last 4 years you will need to ask him.

 

[BlueCrab]

Spade: If he was sincere in his statement to you, he certainly had the time and, since joining the Keenan team, the means to conduct an investigation of Doug. Do you know if he did this?

Hunter: "You'd be surprised if you knew who we were investigating now."

JMO

 

[Spade]

had this to say about Looney Lou:

"Prosecutors can address everything that Smit has raised that points to an outsider. But if they do that publicly, they tell the person who killed JonBenet what the prosecutor knows," he said. "My concern is what Lou has done is publicize evidence that should have remained private until the trial."

 

[tipper]

You mean as opposed to ST and BPD publicizing evidence that should have remained private until the trial?