Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tawny, Dec 9, 2013.
Is the DNA found on JBR's longjohns/panties relevant to the murder?
At the very least, it's a secondary transfer. It's not relevant to the case.
I am dreaming about the letters "DNA." That must mean I am obsessed, right...LOL:floorlaugh:
Great poll Tawny!:loveyou:
If it can be traced to an individual, sure. If not, it means nothing, imo.
Here's a bad analogy for you: Let's say someone stole apples from your fruit trees, came into your house, baked a pie, and then got the hell out of dodge. You notice dirty footprints in your kitchen. You have the dirt tested, and it contains compost and fertilizer. Neither of those things are in your orchard, those are things you would find in a vegetable garden, and you don't have one of those. Hmmmm. You had suspected your landscaper, but obviously, he's innocent since he has no access to a garden either, right? Now, you did find the landscapers boots outside your kitchen door, and he did have apple pie on his breath, and there was an empty pie plate located in his truck...but those dirty footprints you can't indentify MUST mean someone else committed the crime. So, you start trying to track down the dirt and attach that to a suspect. Nevermind the landscaper, right? You've GOT to focus your attention on that mystery dirt!
While in any other case, I feel DNA like this could potentially be relevant, I just do not see how with everything else considered, that it is here.
The IDI theorists who harp on this DNA seem to forget that the crime scene and JB's body were badly, badly contaminated. Her body was brought upstairs and covered with other items from the home. And the DNA that was discovered is such minute amount to begin with.
I don't know. I just do not think with what we know about the crime scene and everything else that this DNA is the be all-end all in proving the Ramsey's were not involved like some think it is.
Studies indicate the average amount of "touch" DNA left on fabric that is in direct contact with skin, for an entire minute, is ~1.2 ng. (Daly et al, 2012)
Taking into account distal stain 007-2's initial "environment" (moisture, temperature, etc.) & time lapsed, I would like to know if primary transfer of DNA, commingled with the blood of a victim, would be likely to measure @ ~0.5 ng. It doesn't seem likely, nor logical, that this amount of foreign DNA (same environment & circumstances) would be the result of secondary transfer. IMHO.
Daly DJ, et al. The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric, and wood. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 (2012), 41-46.
Please listen to Tricia's radio show with the DNA instructor. I will link it when I have time. It's worth a listen, he explains this better than I could ever hope to do.
I will be back with the link as soon as RL allows me to search for it.
ETA: Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...t-8-pm-eastern
If you have any questions about the DNA, I'd advise you to see this thread at our sister forum, FFJ. These issues are laid out in an easy to understand format. Please take the time to read the excellent posts by cynic and koldkase. TIA
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10224"]A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions! - Forums For Justice[/ame]
No, not relevant!
Well, Chelly, tell us how your really feel! LOLOL
IMO, the only relevance the touch DNA has is to give the IDI's, who have nothing else to hang their hats on,........a hatrack.
Believe it or not, I've been referred to this podcast before. (...& to the linked thread @ FFJ)
I went ahead and listened to the interview with Dr. Krane, again. The information he shares is helpful, and I take away something new each time I replay the podcast. My question was not answered. Rather, the information presented by Krane seemed to validate the questions I raised.
I'm not sure how DNA evidence can not relate to the crime, I still think Patsy or John did it. after reading all the stuff here, and PMPT, and Kolers book and watching videos I'm at this present moment leaning toward John by himself. Reason being IMO patsy was so drugged up in her interviews she could barely speak, and it read somewhere (here?) that she couldn't even comb her hair. I find it hard to believe that she could write the ransom note at all.
That being said, I have nigglings about mr and mrs Claus. That whole story is downright weird. Doesn't anyone else feel that it's weird?
I just don't know, I'm not sure justice can ever be served for JonBenet. It's a sad situation. I'm sure all the investigators felt the same. How many weird things to investigate.
I don't know. If this was some crazy pedophile, it seems like he would have struck again and matched the DNA at this point. The Ramseys' story doesn't add up. And I know touch DNA can be transferred quite innocently, and it was such a small sample, but it would seem that every crime scene would be filled with tons of unknown DNA if that were the case. Wouldn't that lead to a lot of false results unless a very obvious sample, like semen, was left behind? Wouldn't there be more than one person's DNA on her clothing? And wouldn't the whole family's DNA be all over essentially everything in the house as well? So many people shed skin cells all over everything all the time.
Yes, you are correct = skin cells (aka Touch DNA or tDNA) are all over a person's home. It is simply unavoidable. This is exactly why I feel (as do most) that the tDNA in this case is not relevant to the crime. Because if it was the killer's it would be all over the crime scene- on the white blanket she was wrapped in, on the cord, on the tape (ESPECIALLY the tape!) - the tape is something that was put on her mouth DURING the crime and directly related to the crime and ONLY the crime. Yet it is not there. You are also correct that body fluids like semen (as well as blood, saliva) are the only sources of DNA that can link the donor to the crime without doubt. The victims' body fluids can also link a person to the crime, if they are found on the suspects clothes, in their home, car, etc.
I find Mr & Mrs Santa just as weird as you do. The whole thing with the dead kids names on his cane- and the majorly creepy novel Mrs Santa wrote about a young girl being tortured and murdered in a basement. Then there is the even MORE creepy story about her own daughter and the daughter's friend being kidnapped and the daughter's friend was sexually assaulted while the daughter was made to watch, then both girls were "returned home"? I mean - a sexual predator does NOT return kids they kidnap and assault. Unless the sexual predator is someone the child knows well. Or lives with. There are a LOT of weird things about these two. BUT...at the end of the day, there is nothing to link them to the crime scene and they both gave hair, saliva and writing samples.
The DNA profile, in CODIS, was not obtained from a "small" sample, relatively speaking. The size of the sample mixed with the bloodstain in the panties was sufficient enough to yield "reliable results" according to Krane, and the TDNA collected did not require LCN, thus, this sample was also adequate in size.
...the torn-up card from the Mr. in JBR's trash can & the Kuralt deception on the 23rd. I don't know. I guess it could all be super, bizarre, coincidental (non) connections.
I would like to change my vote. Is that possible?
Whoa what dead kids names on his cane? Just got a bit creepier
some polls have a "change my vote" button. this one doesn't, but maybe the OP/Tawny could add it (?)
Separate names with a comma.