DNA Facts???

[Britt]

What a shock! The DNA has brought no hits in the FBI database! Why, I'm absolutely flabbergasted! lol

lol, Ivy. Hey, we just gotta be patient. Someday that schoolyard friend of JB or the Asian factory worker will grow up and commit a felony and viola, this case will be solved!

 

[K777angel]

lol, Ivy. Hey, we just gotta be patient. Someday that schoolyard friend of JB or the Asian factory worker will grow up and commit a felony and viola, this case will be solved!

This is why it is such a SAFE move by the Ramseys to make this big deal out of "submitting" DNA to the FBI. They know nothing will come of it. That was never their intention. Their intention is to produce the ILLUSION that there is something to it.
Why is "submitting" something any news at all??? That just cracked me up.
I guess if the sucker media "reports" it - it must mean it's something important!
The very fact that Lin Wood called the presses just to announce that they had "submitted" some old DNA for testing - tells you something right there.
It isn't news. It means nothing - there are NO results. So why did he even bother to do it?
To create the illusion that it meant something. Plant it in the public's mind.

REAL news would have been that they submitted this old DNA and came up with some startling NEW results!!
And also REAL news is that now, after 7 years, the Ramseys finally TRUST the FBI!
LOL!

 

[Shylock]

And also REAL news is that now, after 7 years, the Ramseys finally TRUST the FBI!
LOL!

Gee, ya think they trust the FBI enough now to take an FBI polygraph test???

 

[K777angel]

Gee, ya think they trust the FBI enough now to take an FBI polygraph test???

Not a chance in Hades.

 

[MIBRO]

In the first post there was the question (if I can recall it now) as to whether or not there was "proof" that the DNA was from a male, non-Ramsey source. Many of you may recall the television screen image of the DNA Report Why_Nut provided from the 48 Hours program. It clearly stated the DNA analysis of (going by memory now) the blankets, the fingernails from each hand, and a few other items was male and that the Ramsey males (yes, that included Burke Ramsey) were excluded.

Please keep in mind that it takes only ONE loci that does not match for you to be excluded. Of the numerous loci possibilities, CODIS has narrowed down the ones of greatest interest to 13 (that make each of us different from one another). ALL 13 have to match to have a 99.99% probability. If 12 out of 13 match, there will be another mathematical probability (1 in x millions). If 11 of 13 match, another probability is calculated, and so on. So, say for example, you get a sample with TEN loci and another sample with only SIX (degradation), if there is a match to SIX of those loci, there is a pretty good reason to believe that you have a familial match (at the very least). A test of a full profile of 13 to the 10 available, provides a remarkable statistical probability.

So, is THIS a DNA case? How do you define it? I say, yes it is. IF there are 13 loci identified, it's "gold standard" (as sissi said). IF there are 10 loci identified for comparison, it is VERY GOOD. At the very least, all along (even though it may be "degraded, old, cracked - ??? - how do you get cracked DNA? - results that are cluttered with stutter, or detectives who cannot understand the reports"), the DNA in THIS case has been extremely useful in excluding donors. Has it identifiedthe donor? Not yet, but it is fully capable of doing so, once the right comparison is made.

 

[Shylock]

A test of a full profile of 13 to the 10 available, provides a remarkable statistical probability.

However, all statistics go out the window when it can't be proven that the DNA sample came from only one person and is not just a mixture of contaminated garbage. Any match in that case would be totally meaningless. Sort of like wasting your time comparing fingerprints off a doorbell, after 3 different people pushed it.

Is this a DNA case? Well it's certainly not a "normal" DNA case by any stretch of the imagination.

I just hope I'm around in 20 years to hear what kind of lame excuses the Ramsey team is making for why the DNA never matched anyone.

 

[Jayelles]

Greetings - long time no see!! ... You haven't posted here since you took one of my posts from here to the BB forum for discussion rather than discussing it here with me.... I've been hoping since then that you would come back and explain why you did that - particularly since this forum was private at the time.

...... Anyway - regarding your above question:-

how do you get cracked DNA?

Perhaps this is helpful. It refers to difficulties surrounding the identification of the people who lost their lives at Ground Zero:-

"Because of the fires that burned for weeks after the buildings' collapse, and because of the enormous trauma caused by the compression of the falling structures, much of the crucial DNA has been destroyed.......A lot of the samples are so degraded that they're not able to get successful results with them.......The DNA essentially becomes fragmented so the cells are crushed and the DNA starts breaking apart. As the DNA gets smaller and smaller in size you start losing the ability to pick up information from that DNA because the pieces aren't connected with each other anymore," he said.

 

[BlueCrab]

MIBRO gave a good analysis of DNA markers. A lot of suspects can be eliminated even with a limited number of available markers from the crime scene. San Diego, for instance, had been using as few as six markers in its database to get the number of possible suspects down to a manageable number by the process of elimination.

The main reason CODIS isn't nearly up to speed is money. CODIS relies on the databases of each state and some states don't want to spend the money for the DNA analyses needed to get the results into its database.

As a result , there are something like 350,000 kits from rapes and violent crimes sitting in the evidence rooms of local and state police departments.

CODIS was created in 1995. One of the leaders to get its database up to speed early was Florida. As of 2000 Florida had 63,000 profiles in its database and had scored 210 hits. Florida has no backlog of cases waiting to be tested and entered into the database.

Another problem for the hold-ups has been the different means used by the respective states to analyze and enter DNA into their databases. Many had used the old RFLP method while others used the later PCR method. All states are now switching to the latest method, STR (short tandem repeats).

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

l

 

[sissi]

However, all statistics go out the window when it can't be proven that the DNA sample came from only one person and is not just a mixture of contaminated garbage. Any match in that case would be totally meaningless. Sort of like wasting your time comparing fingerprints off a doorbell, after 3 different people pushed it.

Is this a DNA case? Well it's certainly not a "normal" DNA case by any stretch of the imagination.

I just hope I'm around in 20 years to hear what kind of lame excuses the Ramsey team is making for why the DNA never matched anyone.

The FBI accepted this as a sample,it is not deteriorated,degraded, nor contaminated it met that
"gold standard", they are not in the business of processing garbage.
There may not be a match ,currently,but to deny this "science" as a tool to use to solve this crime,makes no sense,IMO.
As Mibro said,with the few markers they had before the more advanced testing ,they were able to swab and eliminate anyone . They could not include anyone,however they could eliminate. All Ramseys have been eliminated. The BPD lost a few suspects along the way,Thomas Aquinas is one that should have been swabbed. I do not understand why,they gave Arianna a swab in 1999,as I do not understand why the mention of SAS shoe prints was dropped. Arianna being female,and the SAS prints being a woman's,the dna being male ...has always made me go ..hmmm.
IMO

 

[K777angel]

I'll say it again: The presence of a minute amount of DNA at a crime scene does NOT necessarily mean that the minute DNA came from the killer!!
It could have come from a completely innocent source that has absolutely nothing to do with the crime.

In every homicide there will be circumstances and/or "evidence" that does not have anything to do with the crime itself. This case is no different.
The intruiging thing is to watch the Ramsey spin team LATCH ON to those
things that have nothing to do with the crime and see them spin it into
getting the public to believe that it does. Ignoring all the evidence that DOES point to them (like Smit has a habit of doing) - the focus on the things
that will never point back to them - or anyone involved in the crime - because in reality it nothing to DO with the crime.

 

[little1]

Greetings - long time no see!! ... You haven't posted here since you took one of my posts from here to the BB forum for discussion rather than discussing it here with me.... I've been hoping since then that you would come back and explain why you did that - particularly since this forum was private at the time.

...... Anyway - regarding your above question:-



Perhaps this is helpful. It refers to difficulties surrounding the identification of the people who lost their lives at Ground Zero:-

I understand that and it makes sense, but JBR's body was not in that condition. Her parents home had not been blown up or burnt. How does that apply here to that case?

 

[BlueCrab]

All Ramseys have been eliminated.

I don't think that's true. Please provide a source, other than a Ramsey family member or their attorney, who says the DNA eliminates Burke.

Just my opinion.

 

[Britt]

Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/12-30-2003/20031230114502_07.html

How does a perp deposit a DNA sample that is "not of high-enough quality"?

If it were deposited during the crime, how did it instantaneously become "not of high-enough quality"?

 

[Cherokee]

Do we know OFFICIALLY, FACTUAL INFORMATION FROM EXPERTS.....

1. Was Burke's DNA taken and tested?
2. Were the results ever released?
3. Is it a fact that it doesn't "match" the Ramseys?
4. Is it a fact that the sample taken from her panties match those under her nails?
5. Who has submitted DNA to LE?

I'm looking for "official" answers, not theories, not statements from Lin Wood, *******, the Ramseys, Keenan. I'm looking for "science" answers that have been made public by EXPERTS.

Are there any real FACTS pertaining to this latest DNA issue?

Well, Barbara, three pages, and we still don't have any answers to your questions, specifically #3 which I have asked about before.

I have heard it bandied about by Ram supporters FOR YEARS that the partial DNA in JBR's panties matched partial DNA found under her fingernails ...

BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE POSTED ON ANY FORUM OR IN ANY MEDIA.

Apparently, it's an RST Internet myth that cannot be killed.

If ANYONE can post evidence that the partial DNA found in both places WAS THE SAME, I will be glad to say I'm wrong and give you the credit.



IMO

 

[little1]

Well, Barbara, three pages, and we still don't have any answers to your questions, specifically #3 which I have asked about before.

I have heard it bandied about by Ram supporters FOR YEARS that the partial DNA in JBR's panties matched partial DNA found under her fingernails ...

BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE POSTED ON ANY FORUM OR IN ANY MEDIA.

Apparently, it's an RST Internet myth that cannot be killed.

If ANYONE can post evidence that the partial DNA found in both places WAS THE SAME, I will be glad to say I'm wrong and give you the credit.



IMO

Okay, here goes, in an article in USA only 2 weeks ago, it is stated that the DNA does not match any male member of the family, and it also states a source of the DNA; blood.

Here is the site address
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-27-jonbenet-murder_x.htm

I don't know if that helps at all, but that is not the only news source I have found that info in.

 

[Toth]

Dna from under the fingernails had less than a full set of markers; dna from the original test on the blood spot in the panties had less than a full set of markers.
The two sets had markers that were in common and no markers that excluded the two as being from the same contributor.

 

[Ivy]

Toth, where did you hear that? Please give us a reliable source for that information...a non-RST source.

 

[Maxi]

My recollection from ST's book is that the DNA did not match any of the Ramseys IF it was not a mixed sample. Because it was not a primo sample, whether it was from a single donor or mixed could not be determined at the time ST left the case.

If anyone has a better explanation, please post it. I'm not very good with DNA.

 

[why_nutt]

My recollection from ST's book is that the DNA did not match any of the Ramseys IF it was not a mixed sample. Because it was not a primo sample, whether it was from a single donor or mixed could not be determined at the time ST left the case.

If anyone has a better explanation, please post it. I'm not very good with DNA.

This is what the CBI summary report on the DNA results said. The sample taken from the panties contained a major component belonging to JonBenet, and a minor component. As the report states, IF the minor component was contributed by an individual, then the Ramseys are excluded. A person is not going out on a limb to fill in the unstated but factual words that if the minor component is not from an individual, but is from more than one person, the Ramseys are not excluded.

I suspect the results play out as follows. Sample number 7 on the report was from the panties. Samples 14L and 14M were from the right and left fingernail samples, respectively. Sample 7 provided content (identified as WB) for one locus. Sample 14L provided contents (WB and WB) for two loci. Sample 14M provided contents (WA, WB and WB) for three loci. If only one person provided the same loci contents of WB at the same location on all three samples, then it can be assumed that the missing contents of the loci in sample 7 would match the contents of the loci on samples 14L and 14M. But here is the tricky part. John or Patsy or Burke or any other Ramsey or Paugh may have a match on the WB of sample 7, but may not have a match on the other WB of sample 14L or the WA of sample 14M. So, the CBI has to say this; if the WB of sample 7 belongs to the same person who contributed the WA and WBs of the other samples, then Ramseys are excluded. BUT, if the WB of sample 7 belongs to a different person than the WA and WBs of samples 14L and 14M, then the Ramseys cannot be excluded as contributors to the underwear sample, sample 7.

As a better example, let us try this. Imagine that at the scene, a brown hair was left on the blanket, two brown hairs were left on the nightgown, and two brown hairs and a dyed pink hair were left on JonBenet's shirt. If only one person assaulted JonBenet, then you would be looking for someone who had naturally brown hair, some of which had escaped the pink dye. But if the hairs were left by more than one person, you cannot eliminate anyone under suspicion who had naturally brown hair that was not dyed pink, because the pink hair may have come from someone with dyed hair, while the brown hairs may have come from other people with plain undyed brown hair.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/cbi_closeup.gif

 

[Cherokee]

Dna from under the fingernails had less than a full set of markers; dna from the original test on the blood spot in the panties had less than a full set of markers.
The two sets had markers that were in common and no markers that excluded the two as being from the same contributor.

Are you referring to the CBI report explained by Why_Nutt in the above post?

If so, this is still not documented proof that the DNA from JBR's panties and the DNA from her fingernails is from the SAME person. To say they are from the same contributor is making an assumption. It is not scientific fact.



IMO