Day 7 The DNA/ 12 Days of JonBenet

[BBB167893]

"This can lead to the existence of heterogeneous or diverse DNA material extracted from various tissues of the recipient, which would constitute a significant threat in forensic genetic investigations."

I certainly think Jonbenet's criminal case is a forensic genetic investigation. I'm reading it as meaning DNA shed from fingernails, blood and skin does not always match the buccal swab DNA in patients that have had particular therapies - DNA results in some criminal investigations can be compromised, DNA results can be influenced from medical treatments. Question is what specific experimental therapies did she have? Were embryonic stem cells transplanted? Genetic therapy such as embryonic stem cell treatments are used to permanently alter genes and a patient's original biological DNA.

Ma, this case just gets weirder and weirder.

 

[sgrump]

IIRC stem cells were being researched in the early 1990's but I'm thinking they were not used for any type of medical treatments until at least 10 years later.

The NIH is where the research was being done. It's a research facility with far more laboratory space than hospital beds.

Fact remains the NIH said there can be irregularities in forensic DNA findings of crime scenes with some particular patients.

That is exactly what happened with the DNA crime scene findings at Jonbenet's death.

 

[TexMex]

The NIH is where the research was being done. It's a research facility with far more laboratory space than hospital beds.

Fact remains the NIH said there can be irregularities in forensic DNA findings of crime scenes with some particular patients.

That is exactly what happened with the DNA crime scene findings at Jonbenet's death.

IMO this is not a forensics case as far as DNA goes. There was no sign of an intruder. The only people in the house was the family. The family's DNA would naturally be all over the house. There is no indication Patsy received stem cells at NCI while on the NIH campus in 1993. The experimental treatment involved using three toxic chemotherapeutic drugs at higher doses in Stage 4 patients. Patsy was the last surviving member of her experiment group.

 

[Annapurna]

The NIH is where the research was being done. It's a research facility with far more laboratory space than hospital beds.

Fact remains the NIH said there can be irregularities in forensic DNA findings of crime scenes with some particular patients.

That is exactly what happened with the DNA crime scene findings at Jonbenet's death.

Props for coming up with a truly original idea for this case (that we have dissected to death lol).

So this is kind of the same idea as "chimeras" where the DNA of another (in chimera cases usually a twin in the womb) is "mixed up" with the person's DNA so tests don't match. I remember watching some show where the hospital did some kind of DNA test on two baby twins and their mother (I can't remember why... maybe contested paternity) and the mother's DNA did not match even though she had obviously just had those two babies. I think it caused problems for her like they thought she somehow stole the babies.

So this is an interesting, though exotic idea. More avenues to pursue.

It seems slightly more likely to me, just through sheer probability that the mystery DNA came from JB playing with a whole bunch of kids all day long and never washing her hands (PR says in one of her interviews she doesn't remember making her wash her hands or the last time JB had a bath) or the same idea but different person transferring, whoever re-dressed her touched something (maybe on the floor from one of BR's friends) and transferred to her clothing. JMO!

 

[sgrump]

Not truly original at all, just updated information, nobody was discussing touch DNA 20 years ago either.

There has never been a full disclosure of all the treatments, drugs, and therapies Patsy underwent at the NIH. Her medical records were never released to be scrutinized. It does warrant investigation by whoever is in charge these days. The case will stumble in court unless the DNA is accounted for rationalized and explained.

 

[kanzz]

Where do we start...how about this. Let's make this as simple as possible.

The DNA is a red herring. It is "touch" DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains.

What is "Touch DNA"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA


Remember how excited people became because the DNA in JonBenet's panties (touch DNA) had to belong to the Intruder because the panties were brand new so where else could the DNA have come from?

From James Kolar's book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet : Page 272



Even former Boulder DA Mary ( I never met a Ramsey intruder I didn't love ) Lacy had to admit that the DNA could be an artifact.
She thought John Mark Karr was the killer and was just thrilled to parade him around. Of course, his DNA didn't match. So what does Mary Lacy say? She says, "The DNA might be an artifact". Even Mary Lacy is forced to admit there is a chance the DNA doesn't mean anything.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Press-Conference-About-John-Mark-Karr-8-29-06

Simply put I don't think it takes an expert to realize we all have touch DNA on use. All over us. It means nothing. It means we have come in contact with dust, air, and other people in our day to day routines.

What about the DNA in the underwear matching the DNA on the long johns? Ok, easy explanation. When putting the underpants on JonBenet the underwear brushed up against the long johns. Transferred touch DNA.

This is very easy to understand.

There are so many members who are oodles smarter than I am. Please weigh in on the DNA.

Let's put the DNA to rest once and for all.

To pretend that the touch DNA is the key to solving this case you have to IGNORE the ransom note, IGNORE the pineapple and the bowl, IGNORE the Ramsey lies, IGNORE all the strange things that went on with Burke, IGNORE the beaver hair on the tape, IGNORE so many other things that they slip my mind.

DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.

"The DNA is a red herring. It is 'touch' DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains." - I couldn't agree more. Or more adamantly.
Touch DNA (tDNA) is fairly useless in criminal investigation. It can allow the innocent to be convicted, which is enough for me to call it Junk Science. Some states do not even allow as evidence in criminal cases.

Here are a couple of articles about the issues with tDNA:

"Secondary transfer of human DNA through intermediary contact is far more common than previously thought, a finding that could have serious repercussions for medical science and the criminal justice system, report investigators."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.htm

"In one-fifth of those experiments, the person who had never directly touched the knife was identified as the main or only contributor of the DNA on the handle, according to the study, in the January issue of the Journal of Forensic Sciences."
http://www.forensicmag.com/article/2015/10/touch-dna-might-be-contaminating-crime-scene-evidence

This Junk Science is the kind of thing that could lead to any one of us being convicted of a crime we did not commit. I'm not OK with that.

 

[Sunshine4Me]

Patsy received experimental cancer treatment from the NIH for ovarian cancer with all types of medical therapy involved.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578715/

"The results revealed that not only post-transplant blood and buccal swab, but also recipient hair, up to now regarded as devoid of any donor’s cells, do not constitute entirely safe material for forensic purposes. Their analysis can lead to the false identification of gender or male haplotype. The investigation of sex-determining region Y and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats performed in female recipients with male donors resulted in the designation of donor’s DNA in hair cells as well as in blood and buccal swabs. Therefore, biological stains gathered from crime scenes should not be analysed exclusively based on the investigation of male-specific markers."

Read the whole article, not just the abstract. It's from 2012 so is new information, and the source is Patsy's own Hospital.

"This can lead to the existence of heterogeneous or diverse DNA material extracted from various tissues of the recipient, which would constitute a significant threat in forensic genetic investigations."

I think this is a significant finding. It's not CODIS that will ever be able to match the DNA it's from a NIH database.

Interesting and fair point, but this won't account for the degradation of the DNA. In my opinion the degradation rules out the DNA coming from family that night.

Edited to add- degradation rules out in my opinion the DNA coming from anyone that night, unless it was as secondary transfer and already degraded.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

 

[Sherlock Bones]

I havent read all the threads but what are some of the theories on how DNA got under JBR's fingers other than the intruder?

 

[Heymom]

I havent read all the threads but what are some of the theories on how DNA got under JBR's fingers other than the intruder?

There was no intruder. The ME's office used nail clippers from other autopsies without cleaning them, so any DNA was contaminated.

 

[BBB167893]

There was no intruder. The ME's office used nail clippers from other autopsies without cleaning them, so any DNA was contaminated.

Add to that, there were three different DNA profiles under JB's nails, all of them degraded. She literally could have picked it up anywhere.

 

[PositiveLight]

I havent read all the threads but what are some of the theories on how DNA got under JBR's fingers other than the intruder?

Welcome to the Forum! :welcome6: yeah like Hey Mom and Dave said they were very degraded and the ME used nail clippers he had used on other bodies without properly cleaning them, if he cleaned them at all. It's as reliable as the tDNA or Touch DNA. Basically useless and meaningless.

 

[observation]

Check this out! I love Charlie Brennan. He was the man who sued for the unsealing the GJ indictments.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

SHOWTIME!

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30514220/jonbenet-ramsey-dna-evidence

I won't post any highlights. You really have to read it for yourself. And check out the Bill Owens interview as an extra treat!

 

[questfortrue]

SHOWTIME!

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30514220/jonbenet-ramsey-dna-evidence

I won't post any highlights. You really have to read it for yourself. And check out the Bill Owens interview as an extra treat!

OMG. . .:toast:

 

[PositiveLight]

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally we are getting somewhere! Justice for jonbenet!

 

[BoldBear]

Here's the 9news report.

http://www.9news.com/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/a-closer-look-at-the-dna-in-the-jonbent-ramsey-case/343376600

 

[BBB167893]

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally we are getting somewhere! Justice for jonbenet!

I'm ashamed to admit this, PL, but I felt really good reading the parts where LW and JR were squirming. And it's gonna be even more fun watching them get ROASTED if they don't drop these new lawsuits. Is anyone ELSE reminded of Napoleon attacking Russia?

 

[PositiveLight]

Like I said earlier.... I think the Ramsey's and LW have bullied the wrong people. Spitz wont back down and neither will CBS. Nor the rest of the experts. The truth is coming out. Sometimes you bite the wrong dog and that dog bites back.I can't wait to watch them squirm either!

 

[Ambitioned]

Spitz wont back down and neither will CBS. Nor the rest of the experts. The truth is coming out. Sometimes you bite the wrong dog and that dog bites back.I can't wait to watch them squirm either!

I pray he doesn't back down!

 

[Ambitioned]

I'm ashamed to admit this, PL, but I felt really good reading the parts where LW and JR were squirming. And it's gonna be even more fun watching them get ROASTED if they don't drop these new lawsuits. Is anyone ELSE reminded of Napoleon attacking Russia?

Woody is lying as usual. Beckner never said it was a DNA case.

[–]MarkBeckner[S] 119 points 3 days ago
Sorry, I can't provide the rebuttal, as I agree with Jim Kolar. Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. You must look at any case in the totality of all the evidence, circumstances, statements, etc. in coming to conclusions. Mary Lacy, the DA who said the DNA exonerated them made up her mind years before that a mother could not do that to a child, thus the family was innocent. Even though we pointed out that it is not unheard of for mothers do such things.....and you would know that if you just watched the news.

John Ramsey, the girl's father, declined a request for an interview."I think we have said all that can be said and I need to get back to my job!" Ramsey wrote in an email.

What could be more important than the death of your daughter? Despicable elitist *advertiser censored*.