DNA - conclusive?

[Voice of Reason]

How is DNA ever "dated"? Regardless of how many markers there are(n't), can scientists ever say definitively when DNA landed in any particular spot?

On a slightly different note, I'd say that if the DNA ended up matching a 20-something alibi-less male who lived near the Ramseys, nobody would say, "this is not a DNA case," but if, on the other hand, the DNA matched some random underwear-factory worker in Nebraska, well, then we'd be back at square one. At the moment, I don't think we have a DNA case, but if it ends up matching someone who fits the bill, they will certainly be questioned, and if other evidence surrounding that person surfaces suggesting involvement, it will be the DNA that caught the killer (although, I doubt this will be the case)...

 

[BlueCrab]

BTW, CODIS has had that DNA for nigh three years, now. I think they've had time to get it into the system.

Watching you,

The problem is not only at the federal level. In fact, the problem is primarily at the states' level where there isn't enough money in many of the states to complete their DNA analyses and send them into CODIS. The president just signed a bill last week to distribute $1 billion among the states to help them update their DNA facilities and train the technicians.

CODIS is referred to as a federal program, but the federal government is just a computerized traffic cop distributing the DNA analyses generated by the states to the appropriate designations.

 

[BlueCrab]

At the moment, I don't think we have a DNA case,

VoR,

IMO, if there's DNA found at a crime scene, then it's a DNA case.

 

[K777angel]

VoR,

IMO, if there's DNA found at a crime scene, then it's a DNA case.

C'mon Bluecrab! That isn't even sound logic. DNA does not equal perp.
At EVERY crime scene there are circumstances or items present that have absolutely nothing to do with the crime itself. The JonBenet Ramsey case is no different. You cannot look at a single circumstance or item found at a crime scene and state that it is part of the crime simply because it is there.
DNA is no different. You have transfer evidence for instance.

You must look at the TOTALITY of the evidence to determine if it fits or not.
The fact that the perp and/or stager of this Ramsey crime spent so much time in that home and handled JonBenet and her person extensively - and yet there is not a single shred of forensic evidence connecting the dots to indicate anyone other than a Ramsey.

Because there was a teensy fleck of foreign DNA in her underwear does NOT mean it was from the perp! Were it indeed FROM the perp - there would be a whole heck of alot more than some degraded fleck.
And not just in her undies.

I believe it did indeed come from the factory worker. It FITS the rest of the evidence of the crime. Which cannot be ignored.

 

[BlueCrab]

I believe it did indeed come from the factory worker.

angel,

There's a little six-year-old girl who has been strangled, who has had her skull split in two, and who has been sexually assaulted -- and you are going to tell me that the DNA in the CROTCH of her panties is not the DNA of the killer, but is the DNA of a male garment worker in Asia?

And this Asian garment worker also managed to get some of his DNA under the little girl's fingernails?

And this Asian garment worker carries caucasian DNA in his cells?

Uh uh!

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

And this Asian garment worker carries caucasian DNA in his cells?

I agree with your post with the exception of the quoted statement. As I understand it, it is not possible to determine race from DNA. That is a rumor that began on the internet.

 

[Rainsong]

I agree with your post with the exception of the quoted statement. As I understand it, it is not possible to determine race from DNA. That is a rumor that began on the internet.

A south Florida company claims they can do this.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Racial_Identification/

Rainsong

 

[Voice of Reason]

Maybe I should correct that statement (re: DNA determining race). It is possible to determine race, but only if the DNA comes from someone who is 100% of a particular race. Since that is extremely rare these days, it is highly difficult to determine race from DNA.

 

[Jayelles]

A year or so ago, I contacted one of the professors who was working on the Human Genome project and asked him if race cold be determined from DNA and he said no. He said that they could determine race in many cases from mtDNA because they had a huge database of information from a massive study on mtDNA and they had the race of the people involved in that study stored on the database too but at that point in time, they could not determine race from nuclear DNA.

My understanding about the "caucasian DNA" is that it comes from Lou Smit. There was a hair found on the blanket and I understand it was a caucasian hair (mtDNA can be extracted from hair). However Smit tends to presume that all of the evidence is connected to the murder. He therefore believes that the panty DNA is the killer's and the hair is the killer's - ergo the panty DNA is also caucasian.

Smit is not a scientist. He has made one or two booboos about the evidence - his famous gaff was to say the blue line on JonBenet's skin was caused by the blue arc of the probes on the stungun!

 

[Jayelles]

Also note that the article in Rainsong's link is heralding a very recent breakthrough. Smit made his "Caucasian DNA" claim years ago based on tests performed shortly after the murder.

 

[Watching you]

It is true that under our skin, there is no such thing as "race." And, what, exactly, is race? That term is a social term that was invented to differentiate between the colors of our skin, textures of our hair, features of our faces...

At the cellular level, it could be possible to determine race, if there were only one race, or even if the races were all pure. That's not the case, though.

I'll use my own ancestory as an example. As far as I know, I am a mixture of Irish, English, French, Pennsyvania Dutch, and Indian. Is the Indian part of me a race? I don't know. There are physical differences even among the Caucasian races, so again I ask, what is "race"?

Here's the thing - Jayelles is right. There is no pure race. "Black" is not black, "white" is not white. Take Tiger Woods for instance. Tiger isn't black, he's "Cablinasian," a term he applied to himself on the Oprah show when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American.

Woods is Caucasian/Black-African American/Asian, with whatever else of the Heinz 57 varieties thrown in there. His father is half Black, 1/4 American Indian, and 1/4 white. His mother is half Thai and half Chinese.

While this statement angered some of the Black community because they thought Tiger was not being true to his Black heritage, he has demonstrated the problems scientists have in determining "race.' Nobody has really defined "race." One can look at a Swedish blonde girl, fair complected, and see the difference between her and, say, a Scottish girl, who may be dark haired and medium complected. But, Swedish and Scottish aren't races, are they?

Therein lies the problem with DNA. We are all a mixture of races. We Caucasians may even have some Black or Indian in our ancestory, if we go back far enough. So, how is science supposed to delineate which "race" we are by our DNA? With the present technology, it's not possible. They can, however, sometimes pinpoint an area of the world someone may have come from, if they are doing controlled studies, and a certain genetic disposition seems to point to one area more than another. But, they cannot tell someone's race at this time. Maybe someday they will be able to define race and learn a person's race from DNA.

For now, we are all the same under our skin.

 

[Watching you]

And, therefore, Lou Smit lied when he said the DNA was Caucasian.

 

[BlueCrab]

And, therefore, Lou Smit lied when he said the DNA was Caucasian.

Good grief. Now the Ramseys can blame the murder on some African-Americans driving a blue van.

 

[aussiesheila]

VoR,

Please don't forget that, techically, JR, JAR, and JeffR are male Ramseys, but BR is technically a male Paugh if the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction was used. And mitochondial was likely the method of DNA extraction used because it's doubtful there was any nuclear DNA in the sample from the caucasian male (which consisted of saliva). The mitochondrial method can use only the mother's ancestral DNA.


BlueCrab

I don't think this is quite accurate BlueCrab. As I understand it mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, so regardless of whether you are male or female your mitochondrial DNA will be identical to your mother's. Thus neither JR JeffR or JAR would have Ramsey mDNA, JR and JeffR would have their mother's mDNA, JAR would have his mother's (John's first wife) mDNA and Burke and Patsy would have Nedra's mDNA. Also if they determined from the DNA that the individual was male then it must have been nuclear DNA that was analysed because you could not tell from mitochondrial DNA whether it came from a male or a female.

 

[aussiesheila]

The foreign male DNA in JonBenet's panties matches the foreign male DNA under her fingernails. That eliminates DNA from the manufacturing process.
BlueCrab

Since you have posted this BlueCrab I will take it as fact. And is all they have been able to say about this DNA is that it is male? Presumably they have been able to test John, John Andrew and Burke and presumably the DNA did not match theirs. Have they got DNA from anyone else? If so what were the results?

Since the pineapple evidence eliminates the likelihood of an intruder, the foreign male DNA has to be from a fifth person (or perhaps a sixth person) invited into the house that night by a Ramsey.
BlueCrab

I'm not sure I understand your logic in saying the pineapple evidence eliminates the likelihood of an intruder. Do you mean you think that while it is unlikely an unknown intruder would have brought it, it could have been brought in by an invitee? Are you also saying that you think that in addition to the Ramseys there were two invitees or one invitee and an intruder in the house that night?

 

[Voice of Reason]

I'm not sure I understand your logic in saying the pineapple evidence eliminates the likelihood of an intruder. Do you mean you think that while it is unlikely an unknown intruder would have brought it, it could have been brought in by an invitee? Are you also saying that you think that in addition to the Ramseys there were two invitees or one invitee and an intruder in the house that night?

If I may, I'd like to answer that one. (Hope you don't mind, BC) The reason the pineapple suggests no intruder is because it is highly unlikely that JB would sit at the breakfast table with a total stranger and eat pineapple. The fact that she did that (if you take it as fact as I do), implies she was in the company of family or friend.

 

[Watching you]

I guess if something is repeated often enough, as the fallacy about the fingernail DNA matching the panty DNA has been, it then becomes fact in some people's minds.

There is absolutely no evidence that the DNA under the fingernails is, in fact, a match to the panty DNA. In fact, the evidence that we know about would indicate there is no match.

 

[bensmom98]

I don't think this is quite accurate BlueCrab. As I understand it mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, so regardless of whether you are male or female your mitochondrial DNA will be identical to your mother's. Thus neither JR JeffR or JAR would have Ramsey mDNA, JR and JeffR would have their mother's mDNA, JAR would have his mother's (John's first wife) mDNA and Burke and Patsy would have Nedra's mDNA. Also if they determined from the DNA that the individual was male then it must have been nuclear DNA that was analysed because you could not tell from mitochondrial DNA whether it came from a male or a female.

That is correct AussieSheila.

 

[K777angel]

angel,

There's a little six-year-old girl who has been strangled, who has had her skull split in two, and who has been sexually assaulted -- and you are going to tell me that the DNA in the CROTCH of her panties is not the DNA of the killer, but is the DNA of a male garment worker in Asia?

And this Asian garment worker also managed to get some of his DNA under the little girl's fingernails?

And this Asian garment worker carries caucasian DNA in his cells?

Uh uh!

BlueCrab

BlueCrab - Just because there are things found at a crime scene does NOT then follow that it is PART of the crime or that it belongs to the perp! You MUST look at ALL of the evidence and see if it fits. NONE of the other evidence fits an intruder or a person outside of one of the 3 Ramseys in the house that night. The cover-up (which DID occur) makes no sense.
I know you believe with all your heart that a fifth or sixth person was in the house that night and participated in the crime with Burke. I cannot think of a single thing that supports that theory.

Show me one source that states as fact that the DNA fleck (without even enough markers to ever prove or disprove a "match" to anyone) matched DNA under JonBenet's fingernails!
(And let's not ignore the fact that even if such a thing is true - that JonBenet herself could have touched herself or her underwear thereby accounting for whatever was in her underwear ending up on her fingers!)

And finally, IF whatever microscopic speck of DNA belonged to some unknown intruder in the house that night - why isn't his DNA found everywhere else?
As you would expect.
It is not.

And should they have found any DNA from a Ramsey on JonBenet - well that could be explained away as being understandable as they LIVED with her in the house afterall.

This is not and has never been a DNA case.
No matter how much the RPT stretches, exaggerates, manipulates and lies about the truth of that DNA speck. They've milked it for all it's worth hoping many would fall for it.

 

[Rainsong]

It is true that under our skin, there is no such thing as "race."

For now, we are all the same under our skin.

This is not an accurate statement since forensic anthropologists can determine race from bones. The differences are small, but they do show up in bone structure. And no, this has nothing to do with DNA, but does relate to the erroneous comment that we are all the same under our skin.

Rainsong