Day 7 The DNA/ 12 Days of JonBenet

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tricia, Sep 13, 2016.

  1. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ma, this case just gets weirder and weirder.
     


  2. sgrump

    sgrump Active Member

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  3. TexMex

    TexMex Punishment is justice for the unjust.

    Messages:
    7,614
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  4. Annapurna

    Annapurna Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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!
     
  5. sgrump

    sgrump Active Member

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  6. kanzz

    kanzz kanzz=kansas

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "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.
     
  7. Sunshine4Me

    Sunshine4Me New Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  8. Sherlock Bones

    Sherlock Bones Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    8
    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?
     
  9. Heymom

    Heymom New Member

    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There was no intruder. The ME's office used nail clippers from other autopsies without cleaning them, so any DNA was contaminated.
     
  10. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  11. PositiveLight

    PositiveLight Active Member

    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  12. observation

    observation Active Member

    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Check this out! I love Charlie Brennan. He was the man who sued for the unsealing the GJ indictments. [​IMG]



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  13. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    48
  14. questfortrue

    questfortrue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
  15. PositiveLight

    PositiveLight Active Member

    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yay!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally we are getting somewhere! Justice for jonbenet!
     
  16. BoldBear

    BoldBear Active Member

    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    43
  17. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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?
     
  18. PositiveLight

    PositiveLight Active Member

    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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!
     
  19. Ambitioned

    Ambitioned Active Member

    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I pray he doesn't back down!
     
  20. Ambitioned

    Ambitioned Active Member

    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

    What could be more important than the death of your daughter? Despicable elitist ass.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice