The Misdirection and Deception of the DNA

New Posts

887sMtreme

887sMtreme

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
6,140
Wasn’t at least one of the contributors said to have been possibly someone in the factory where the panties were manufactured and packaged?
 
kaykay543

kaykay543

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
688
Reaction score
6,039
Website
www.damngoodpopcorn.com
887sMtreme said:
Wasn’t at least one of the contributors said to have been possibly someone in the factory where the panties were manufactured and packaged?
Click to expand...


Everything I read said it "could have been" a factory worker. I think mainly to show that there are a lot of different ways an "unknown" males touch DNA could be on there.
 
T

Tadpole12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
7,821
Reaction score
12,188
Cottonstar

Cottonstar

Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,032
Reaction score
1,341
Website
instagram.com
lisasalinger

lisasalinger

Juror13
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
14
Tadpole12 said:
JR / th01 / 6 , 9.3
Click to expand...

Thanks Tadpole. Yes, I’m aware of how you figure out that marker. That spreadsheet is intended to compare the information that was put out there, as it was put out there, in a way that hasn’t been presented


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T

Tadpole12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
7,821
Reaction score
12,188
Mixed sample / Caucasian 2015 Expanded FBI STR Loci Allele Frequencies:


Th01 / 9 / 0.1658
D55818 / 10 / 0.0495
D18551 / 11 / 0.0124
D135317 / 13 / 0.1114
D351358 / 15 / 0.2475
vWA / 18 , 19 / 0.2178 , 0.0817
FGA / 22 , 26 / 0.1881 , 0.0173
D21511 / 31.2 / 0.1015
 
T

Tadpole12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
7,821
Reaction score
12,188
H

Heatherk79

New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5
Reaction score
3
lisasalinger said:
Not surprisingly, we don't have any summaries of the underwear stain testing - just pieces of those reports. But trying to get them. So I can't say for sure if any of them are excluded or included, etc. by the DNA analysts. I just think it's interesting that Burke has matching alleles at 10 out of the 13 markers, and Patsy has them at every marker. Like we were saying in our post, we believe Burke's DNA is one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1". There's no possible way they (Lacy, Ramseys & gang) honestly think Unknown Male 1 is actually one person after reading the DNA reports. So if they're intentionally putting a fake profile out there, what does that mean? As far as we're concerned, it means they're covering for someone, pointing us in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...


If what Tadpole12 said is correct in determining JR's markers for locus TH01, doesn't that mean JR has matching alleles at 12 out of the 13 markers? If that's the case, isn't JR's DNA just as likely as BR's to be one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1?" Or am I missing something?
 
lisasalinger

lisasalinger

Juror13
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
14
Heatherk79 said:
If what Tadpole12 said is correct in determining JR's markers for locus TH01, doesn't that mean JR has matching alleles at 12 out of the 13 markers? If that's the case, isn't JR's DNA just as likely as BR's to be one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1?" Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Hey Heather / Tadpole,

The point of the post isn’t to figure out exactly whose DNA is at the scene. We know it doesn’t belong to one other person. The point is to highlight the misdirection of Ramsey/Lacy in claiming it does. Why does there need to be a misdirection? That’s the point; what does their misdirection tell us? It is important to note, John Ramsey was excluded from every sample collected. Burke Ramsey was not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
lisasalinger

lisasalinger

Juror13
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
14
lisasalinger said:
Hey Heather / Tadpole,

The point of the post isn’t to figure out exactly whose DNA is at the scene. We know it doesn’t belong to one other person. The point is to highlight the misdirection of Ramsey/Lacy in claiming it does. Why does there need to be a misdirection? That’s the point; what does their misdirection tell us? It is important to note, John Ramsey was excluded from every sample collected. Burke Ramsey was not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But conveniently, Lacy nor any of the Ramseys make any mention that Burke was not excluded. Why did Lacy hide these reports from the public? Do Ramseys have a right to sue those questioning Burke’s involvement when Burke’s name is right there on the reports - can’t exclude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
H

Heatherk79

New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5
Reaction score
3
lisasalinger said:
Hey Heather / Tadpole,

The point of the post isn’t to figure out exactly whose DNA is at the scene. We know it doesn’t belong to one other person. The point is to highlight the misdirection of Ramsey/Lacy in claiming it does. Why does there need to be a misdirection? That’s the point; what does their misdirection tell us? It is important to note, John Ramsey was excluded from every sample collected. Burke Ramsey was not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response, Lisa. I understand more clearly now the point of your post/article. I agree; the members of Team Ramsey were masters at misdirection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top