Dna

[aRnd2it]

This SCREAMS SALIVA IMO!!!

You still haven't explained how you would leave degraded, broken strand DNA in someone underpants and under their fingernail...using saliva or any other means.

And by the way, a sneeze or a cough doesn't necessarily relate to "saliva". Most people catch a common cold when an airborne virus enters their body through their eye. You can catch a cold by just talking to someone who already has the cold.

 

[aRnd2it]

Q: Why is the DNA yield from saliva so high?
A: Saliva contains a large number of buccal epithelial cells. The Oragene solution is very effective at preventing DNA degradation and very efficient at extracting DNA from the buccal cells.

Jayelles,
I don't know where Sissi gets this "saliva degrades DNA" idea either. There have been cases solved by the saliva left on the tip of a cigarette butt, and the Brown's Fried Chicken massacre was solved when the perp's DNA was found to be on a half-eaten piece of fried chicken in the garbage can.

If "saliva contains a large number of buccal epithelial cells", how could you possibly leave only cells with degraded DNA on two places on a person's body? :waitasec: (Hint: you can't :banghead: )

 

[sissi]

It does, you don't have to trust me, do a search, certainly you'll find something. .. I believe it is an enzyme, dnase..yep that sounds right, DNase enzyme.... Not to be impolite, but whenever I read something that you guys "announce" I do try to "look it up" and try to figure out where you're "comin' from". Maybe start with "saliva degrades dna".

 

[Jayelles]

It does, you don't have to trust me, do a search, certainly you'll find something. .. I believe it is an enzyme, dnase..yep that sounds right, DNase enzyme.... Not to be impolite, but whenever I read something that you guys "announce" I do try to "look it up" and try to figure out where you're "comin' from". Maybe start with "saliva degrades dna".

("you guys"????? Sissi? Hmmm)


Yes, I had already found this website:-
http://www.rainin.com/pdf/tr2004_1.pdf

In fact, it is the ONLY one which matched the search for "saliva degrades dna" but look at it. The information is in a table and the word "saliva" is in one cell and the words "degrades DNA" in another cell. They aren't part of the same sentence!

Now this report is talking about Dnase as you correctly point out. Dnase is an enzyme which degrades DNA and it IS found in saliva but you have to read the whole document. Everything that contains DNA has something in it which on its own, will degrade the DNA! According to this same report, even DNA degrades DNA!

R2bit is correct incidentally, DNA exists in saliva for a very long time. Look at Patricia Cornwell's recent tests on the Jack the Ripper licked stamp. OK, the results were inconclusive, but the saliva was over 100 years old! Still, they did the tests in hope!

 

[sissi]

You guys, is northern for ya'll, it covers "you" when people think just using "you" directs something to an individual instead of a group.

 

[sissi]

I realize no one wants to believe that the dna was from saliva, as they really don't want to believe that unless collected and handled in a specific manner it will begin to degrade. The dna found in saliva is nothing more than epithelial cells, so if your perp kissed her lover, and spit, you may be typing not hers but his dna. My question for the day, for myself, is there ever dna in pure saliva...I will look, but doubt it.

 

[aRnd2it]

DNA exists in saliva for a very long time. Look at Patricia Cornwell's recent tests on the Jack the Ripper licked stamp. OK, the results were inconclusive, but the saliva was over 100 years old! Still, they did the tests in hope!

They have the DNA from the Zodiac killer which they extracted from under the stamps on the letters he sent 34 years ago.

It's an interesting story:
Working with DNA evidence, San Francisco homicide inspectors believe they have cleared the only person police ever named as a suspect in the Zodiac killings that terrorized the Bay Area three decades ago.
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/sfc021015.html

 

[Jayelles]

I realize no one wants to believe that the dna was from saliva, as they really don't want to believe that unless collected and handled in a specific manner it will begin to degrade. The dna found in saliva is nothing more than endothelial cells, so if your perp kissed her lover, and spit, you may be typing not hers but his dna. My question for the day, for myself, is there ever dna in pure saliva...I will look, but doubt it.

You don't have to look far. I posted the link above.

I imagine that it could be saliva if, as Tom Bennett suggests, the DNA came from a cough or a sneeze. My children have all drenched me with wet coughs/sneezes at some point.

However, as the report in the link I posted above states, there is a HIGH level of DNA in saliva. One would therefore have expected more than just a "miniscule amount" if the perp had licked her, spat upon her or drooled over her. One would also not have expected this to be degraded a few hours later. You are correct that there is an enzyme in saliva which degrades DNA. However, you wouldn't say that air kills us, yet air contains carbon dioxide and THAT kills us. DNA survives in saliva for a long, long time.

 

[My Take]

You don't have to look far. I posted the link above.

I imagine that it could be saliva if, as Tom Bennett suggests, the DNA came from a cough or a sneeze. My children have all drenched me with wet coughs/sneezes at some point.

However, as the report in the link I posted above states, there is a HIGH level of DNA in saliva. One would therefore have expected more than just a "miniscule amount" if the perp had licked her, spat upon her or drooled over her. One would also not have expected this to be degraded a few hours later. You are correct that there is an enzyme in saliva which degrades DNA. However, you wouldn't say that air kills us, yet air contains carbon dioxide and THAT kills us. DNA survives in saliva for a long, long time.

ah, but many assume such a cough or sneeze occurred to the underwear prior to the crime. the *evidence* proves this is unreasonable. the idea that dna was coughed or sneezed on the underwear and only two small drops of dna (not the drenching of which you speak!) made it onto the exact two locations that jbr's blood would end up inthe future is unreasonable.

if it came from a cough or a sneeze, it was during the commission of the crime or staging.

so says the facts in this case - if they have been reported accurately.

toss in matching dna under the nails of both hands and matching dna a few feet from the body...

the owner of said dna *MUST* reasonably included in the commission and/or staging of this crime.

 

[aRnd2it]

if it came from a cough or a sneeze, it was during the commission of the crime or staging.

What, you don't think people in the coroner's lab ever cough or sneeze?

And if there was dried saliva in the panties from the factory or point of sale, how do you know she didn't get some of it under her fingernail when wiping herself?

 

[Jayelles]

ah, but many assume such a cough or sneeze occurred to the underwear prior to the crime. the *evidence* proves this is unreasonable. the idea that dna was coughed or sneezed on the underwear and only two small drops of dna (not the drenching of which you speak!) made it onto the exact two locations that jbr's blood would end up inthe future is unreasonable.

if it came from a cough or a sneeze, it was during the commission of the crime or staging.

You are forgetting that the entire surface of the panties wasn't tested for DNA. We know this because the SECOND bloodspot wasn't tested until 1999.

I think we cannot assume anything about the testing of the panties.

toss in matching dna under the nails of both hands and matching dna a few feet from the body...

the owner of said dna *MUST* reasonably included in the commission and/or staging of this crime.

You cannot state that a DNA sample with only 1/2 markers is a "match"!!! That is like saying:-

-A------ is a match to JAYELLES!

(well you can say it and you can keep saying it till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it a fact. Lin Wood has said t but he's said a lot of things which have been pure spin on the truth).

 

[My Take]

You are forgetting that the entire surface of the panties wasn't tested for DNA. We know this because the SECOND bloodspot wasn't tested until 1999.

I think we cannot assume anything about the testing of the panties.

You cannot state that a DNA sample with only 1/2 markers is a "match"!!! That is like saying:-

-A------ is a match to JAYELLES!

(well you can say it and you can keep saying it till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it a fact. Lin Wood has said t but he's said a lot of things which have been pure spin on the truth).

how do you know it hasn't been tested between 1999 and now - 5 years? i understood from 48 hours that it had been checked and none was found. this should've been done sometime in 1997 - if it hasn't been done already.

prelimiary tests for dna are pretty simple tests.

i guess you see the implication if there is no foreign dna on those panties ;-)

one should not assume guilt when something so simple could reasonably exculpate them. that's bad *logic*.

uh, no, it is totally different. the probability of half the markers matching is extremely low due to random chance alone. we are likely talking somewhere around one in a million - much different that your example.

say what? i don't claim it is truth, i'm claiming the obvious implication *IF* it is true.

you pooh pooh lin's spin (and rightfully so), but you lay silent regarding the admitted lies of the bpd - paid for with public money and responsible to the public.

that' sintellectually inconsistent, wouldn't you agree? ;-)

ps - if bpd is gonna claim "mail factory contamination" then they have to *prove* that scenario is reasonable. if the panties have not been tested outside the blood for the presence of dna then they are pathetic.

 

[My Take]

What, you don't think people in the coroner's lab ever cough or sneeze?

And if there was dried saliva in the panties from the factory or point of sale, how do you know she didn't get some of it under her fingernail when wiping herself?

they don't cough or sneeze under both fingernails and *ONLY* onto two blood drops and NOWHERE else.

in addition, a cough in the coroner's lab *will not* leave dnax a few feet from where jbr's body was placed.

wouldn't you agree, assuming this is true, that a coronoer cough or sneeze as the source of this foreign dan is unreasonable? scratch that - utterly impossible?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Does Not Apply. Quasi facts, quasi reasoning powers and science fiction belong on the Art Bell show and in the tabs. Had there been an intruder, there likely would have been a substantial deposit of DNA. The fact there isn't points away from an intruder, not to an intruder. Yet the minds that prefer the twilight zone or the amoral world of lawyers cling to the slimmest of non-evidence of an intruder.

Why? Westerfield didn't leave anything!

 

[My Take]

to all you who cling so tight to the contamination theories - either pre or post cirme, *PROVE* that there is foreign dna all over that underwear as one would *reasonably* expect given you assertions.

otherwise, you blow nothing more than smoke - except the smoke particles carry more weight than your argument.

 

[My Take]

Why? Westerfield didn't leave anything!

exactly!

if westerfield entered the van dam home, stunned danielle and killed her in her bed, these same folks would be pompously accusing the van dams of murdering their child.

there is much more evidence of an intruder in ramsey case than in the van dam case. there is NO evidence in the van dam case.

 

[Jayelles]

how do you know it hasn't been tested between 1999 and now - 5 years? i understood from 48 hours that it had been checked and none was found. this should've been done sometime in 1997 - if it hasn't been done already.

We don't know that it hasn't been tested any more than you know that it has! That is my point. It is an *advertiser censored*-u-mption to state that there was only foreign DNA in the bloodstain areas. What we DO know is that they hadn't tested the second bloodstain until 2/3 years after the murder :-

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.

prelimiary tests for dna are pretty simple tests.

i guess you see the implication if there is no foreign dna on those panties ;-)

one should not assume guilt when something so simple could reasonably exculpate them. that's bad *logic*.

Who's assuming guilt? I am interested only in facts.

uh, no, it is totally different. the probability of half the markers matching is extremely low due to random chance alone. we are likely talking somewhere around one in a million - much different that your example.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from. I understand that there is a minimum requirement in law before they will assume a match. I also understand that requirement is for considerably more than 1/2 markers out of 13!

you pooh pooh lin's spin (and rightfully so), but you lay silent regarding the admitted lies of the bpd - paid for with public money and responsible to the public.

I see no reason to keep rehashing the shortfallings of the BPD. They have been off the case for 2 years now. The investigators have been successfuly silenced by TeamRamsey and only TR are talking (until Tom Bennett felt compelled to speak out this week to set the record straight).

ps - if bpd is gonna claim "mail factory contamination" then they have to *prove* that scenario is reasonable. if the panties have not been tested outside the blood for the presence of dna then they are pathetic.

I understand they did test unused panties and found traces of DNA.

 

[Jayelles]

exactly!

if westerfield entered the van dam home, stunned danielle and killed her in her bed, these same folks would be pompously accusing the van dams of murdering their child.

there is much more evidence of an intruder in ramsey case than in the van dam case. there is NO evidence in the van dam case.

The point is - Westerfield left no evidence in the house but there was plenty of evidence to link him to Danielle's murder in his motorhome. Yet many of the same people who blindly support the Ramseys, dismiss that evidence. Some of us are interested in this phenmomenon ;-)

 

[My Take]

We don't know that it hasn't been tested any more than you know that it has! That is my point. It is an *advertiser censored*-u-mption to state that there was only foreign DNA in the bloodstain areas. What we DO know is that they hadn't tested the second bloodstain until 2/3 years after the murder :-

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html



Who's assuming guilt? I am interested only in facts.


I don't know where you are getting your figures from. I understand that there is a minimum requirement in law before they will assume a match. I also understand that requirement is for considerably more than 1/2 markers out of 13!


I see no reason to keep rehashing the shortfallings of the BPD. They have been off the case for 2 years now. The investigators have been successfuly silenced by TeamRamsey and only TR are talking (until Tom Bennett felt compelled to speak out this week to set the record straight).


I understand they did test unused panties and found traces of DNA.

actually, the 48 hours show claimed none had been found outside the blood. now, one could believe that bpd is still borderline retarded, but i think they probably did look - if only in a vain attempt to find patsy's dna on the underwear.

the issue of prior contamination was brought up - and it hasn't even been established to be possible. it shouldn't be repeated.

i'm on much safer ground saying "no dna was found outside the blood" than someone who says "a cough caused the contamination."

you see, there is no evidence to contradict what i've said and there is no supporting evidence to support the cough.

you guys just don't like the *evidence* being used against you ;-)

the ramseys can't silence the truth - just the admitted lies of bpd designed to pressure them and pollute the jury pool.

that stuff should be shut down - the system worked.

i think the underwear was tested in search to prove the cough theory and to find patsy's dna. i think nothing was found and that's one of the main reasons why the bda doesn't consider the ramseys good suspects.

i'm open to verifiable facts, but i don't think we'll get those until a trial.

i think you do understand what matching dna only in jbr's blood, under her nails and a few feet from her body would mean, if true.

a non ramsey was, in fact, involved in the crime and/or the cover up.

maybe that's why smits and the bda and about every rational person who looked at this case don't consider the ramseys serious suspects.

 

[My Take]

The point is - Westerfield left no evidence in the house but there was plenty of evidence to link him to Danielle's murder in his motorhome. Yet many of the same people who blindly support the Ramseys, dismiss that evidence. Some of us are interested in this phenmomenon ;-)

westerfield is 100% guilty.

but if he had stunded and garrotted danielle in her bed, there would not be any evidence of him in the home.

the rdi profile wouold blame the van dams - and be wrong.

except in the van dam case their cries of "there's no evidence of an intruder" would actually be accurate... -lol-