"New DNA" just another red herring

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Seeker, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is why the “new” DNA evidence is just another red herring.
    The microscopic DNA residue that was found under JBR’s fingernails was “degraded” plus it was so minute that they could not even get a full code string of markers from it.
    The DNA in her panties that was mixed with her own blood was the same, so minute that it couldn’t give a full set of markers.

    Now the “new” touch DNA is the same…not a full set of markers. Now, from what I understand that without the full set of markers you cannot determine an exact match for where those markers fall into the entire coding sequence of the DNA strand.

    So we have some minute trace of DNA with a few markers that match. But where in the genome coding sequence do they fall? 500 people could have several of the exact same markers, but if they don’t fall in the same sequence in the entire strand…well you get the idea. They don't match.

    Also Mary Lacy is forgetting some crucial information. Patsy dressed JB in those long johns and not only that she wore them all that afternoon.

    Jon Benet received many gifts that year, among them a My Twinn doll and a new bike.
    Plus they were at the Whites for dinner with the girls (Daphne and JB) playing on the FLOOR at the Whites.

    It is entirely possible that JB got that DNA under her nails from playing with anything that day. She could even have gotten it off the banister of either the front or spiral staircase! Remember the Ramsey’s opened their home for those Christmas “tours” where anyone could walk in and walk through the home so anyone who went through the house could have deposited his DNA on the banister.

    Or perhaps the person who put JB’s bike together for her left his DNA and she got it from there…
    Or it could have been anyone else who handled any of the presents that were put into packages (think factory worker) for the kids that year.

    Then JB goes to the bathroom, pulls down the long johns dislodging some of the skin cells onto them, then pulls down her panties and the same thing happens, then when she’s assaulted her blood drops onto the panties trapping the microscopic skin cell fragments into it. It’s called cross contamination.

    The plain and simple fact is that there is no way to prove that this very microscopic DNA belongs to the killer at all.

    Why is this microscopic DNA not found on the blanket she was wrapped in, or on the Barbie nightgown (her favorite) that was near her when she was found?

    Mary Lacy should be ashamed of herself for providing yet another lame excuse to try and exonerate the Ramsey’s. But all she has done is make her self and her department the same laughing stock she was a year ago when she tried to pass off JMK as the killer…

    MOO
     
  2. Loading...


  3. jubie

    jubie Former Member

    Messages:
    2,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for taking the time to make all those points. I agree with Nedthan, where are all the experts and why aren't we hearing them say these very same things on TV? Yesterday huge news today no news, argh.
     
  4. SeekingJana

    SeekingJana Active Member

    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    They did comment on Nancy Grace. This DNA called " touch DNA" contains a small fragment of DNA material. Not enough to be sequenced. It cannot be identified, IOW.
    Since 100% of all human DNA matches on MOST alelles, I am not surprised that they could slide by and say that the DNA " matches" the DNA found in JBR's panties. Yeah, if you only have 1-2 loci to test, they could very well match.

    Another thing- " Touch DNA" is not reliable and cannot be used in a court of law as scientific or any other type of evidence!! Because it is incidental DNA.

    I am a firm believer in scientific methods to advance criminology, but NOT VOODOO SCIENCE!!
     
  5. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now you stop that!!! :laugh: You almost made me spit my tea on my brand new monitor and keyboard!
     
  6. jubie

    jubie Former Member

    Messages:
    2,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    HA ha ha ha! I guess I expected alot more coverage today, maybe tonight? If not oh well.
     
  7. LI_Mom

    LI_Mom New Member

    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess even the media is embarrassed to report much more of this nonsense by Lacy.
     
  8. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good points, Seeker. Also, according to Patsy herself (see police interview transcript) JonBenet's last bath was while getting ready to go to the Christmas Eve church service. The service was at 4:00 or 4:30 on Christmas Eve. After church they went out to a restaurant (Pasta Jay's) for dinner. Patsy could not remember any time after that bath and prior to JB's death that JB was bathed or washed or was observed doing so on her own. She could've picked up DNA under her fingernails from church or the restaurant that she later transferred herself to her underwear and long johns anytime in the subsequent 24+ hours.
     
  9. arielilane

    arielilane Justice for Morgan

    Messages:
    42,957
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you Seeker for your extremely intelligent post.
     
  10. JMO8778

    JMO8778 ..at the beach!

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with the consensus of RDI's;this is just Mary Lacy's gift to John Ramsey before she leaves office.John is obviously afraid of who and what might happen once she leaves,so he's trying to seal the deal before anything else can occur.
    They might have fooled some people,but 'those who are wise shall understand'.It's nothing more than a rehash of past behavior.
     
  11. JMO8778

    JMO8778 ..at the beach!

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ..some of the dna,according to Mark Fuhrman, is also said to be stutter dna,or a replication of some of JB's own dna,which is why Mark also stated the dna had Ramsey 'ramifications' I believe is how he put it.(But I also take it to mean some could be Burke's.We really don't know without all the evidence from it on the table.) Also at that time,the camera caught Dr Baden shaking his head in agreement.
    So I wouldn't think dna on the waistband,(no matter which side it was on),matching some of the markers (since some were likely duplicated,familial markers anyway),would be all that unusual!!
     
  12. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah New Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On what basis is Lacy saying that it belongs to a "male who is not a Ramsey"?
     

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