The undies and DNA

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by ellen13, Nov 30, 2005.

  1. ellen13

    ellen13 New Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, let's suppose that JBR's undies had DNA that came from
    a factory worker in southeast Asia.
    Hello, but wouldn't that have been washed out before the first wearing of the undies?? Did I miss something, or were those brand new panties. Sorry if I missed this fact. But for a bedwetter, it would seem that her undies were constantly being washed. How could DNA be left behind from a worker??
    The DNA had to be from a stranger.
    Thoughts????????????:waitasec: :waitasec:
     
  2. Loading...


  3. ellen13

    ellen13 New Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And, have we ever checked other brand new panties to see

    if foreign DNA was left behind from factory workers before?

    Is this common?
     
  4. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why has Boulder released the race info on Chase's killer, and not on the killer of Jonbenet? They continue to hide the information that could prove exculpatory to the Ramseys. If that dna is not Asian, a public announcement should be made apologizing for perpetuating the idea that the dna came packaged in her underwear.
     
  5. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The underwear were not washed before they were worn. So, if DNA managed to be deposited on them (which is a certainty unless the clothing manufacturers wore protective masks and gloves, which is itself drastically unlikely), there is a good chance it would have been survived to yield a partial match. Pop a pair of DNA-contaminated underwear into a plastic bag for transport from Asia to the U.S., expose them to enough heat from the shipping process (weather, cargo-hold temperatures) to degrade the sample, and you have a very simple reason for why DNA can be found in underwear. Everyone who has shopped at a store this past week? You have foreign DNA on your clothing from at least some of the people who touched the items you touched and whose DNA you then transferred to your own clothing.

    It is confounding to think of the people associated with this case who sincerely seem to believe that underwear is sterile when it comes out of the package. Hint: viruses are spread through the same process that spreads DNA. If you have ever caught a cold or flu, you can consider that proof that foreign DNA has made its way onto your body, clothing, and belongings. This is why you are supposed to wash purchased clothing before you wear it, to get rid of foreign DNA.
     
  6. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The information is not "hidden". The DNA has already excluded the Ramseys; however the DNA does not come from the killer. It comes from any number of sources.

    This is not a DNA case
     
  7. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do believe this is not a dna case, clearly because they have not yet located the match. When they do, it will be a dna case.
     
  8. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Technically, it may not have even done that. The initial report states that if the DNA came from one person, the Ramseys are excluded. But the logical and scientific inference to make is that if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people, the Ramseys are not excluded. Logic would suggest that this means the markers have things in common with several Ramsey family members, but all of the markers do not appear in an individual Ramsey sample.

    Here is a little illustration. Suppose you find beads from some unknown number of charm bracelets on the ground. The beads used to form the first name of one or more people, with each letter appearing on a separate bead. If you find a bead with the letter O on it, you may be looking at a bracelet that belonged to John. If you find a bead with an A on it, the bracelet might have belonged to Patsy. Now, suppose you find two beads, an A and an O. If the beads came from one bracelet, it could not belong to either John or Patsy. But if the beads came from two bracelets, the beads could belong to both of them.
     
  9. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That was a wonderfully clear analogy!:clap: I don't believe I have ever heard it explained better!
     
  10. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Keep it in mind whenever anyone says "The Ramseys are excluded." It is a conditional exclusion, and the person stating it as proof positive is obligated to explain why the CBI made it conditional if it was absolute proof.
     
  11. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, WhyNutt is correct. It was an excellent analogy.

    If it is conditional, then at this point, nobody is excluded

    Thanks for the clarification WhyNutt. You are as always, the best :)
     
  12. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Key words..."in the initial report"!!
    Years later, a good "enough" to put in codis sample was collected off of a previously ignored area of her clothing and it was from a SINGLE source. That sample was not mixed!
     
  13. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, that has never been stated as bluntly as that. All we have heard, as with the initial report, is that more markers were found. But if, instead of two from one person and one from another, as could have been the case at first, they now have five from one person and five from another, or nine from one person and one from another, or two from one person, five from a second person, and three from a third person, you would still have ten markers, and you would also still have an inability to potentially rule out the Ramseys as contributors, or for that matter the possibility of innocent transfer during the process of manufacturing and distributing the underwear. At least Smit and Mary Keenan-Lacy give lip service to not having ruled out the Ramseys, and it could be that even one marker in common with them prevents them from being able to do that.
     
  14. txsvicki

    txsvicki Active Member

    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I can't seem to remember all the things that have been said about dna. Was dna under JonBenet's fingernails the same as that found on the panties?
     
  15. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Say this after me: Overlap is not matching.

    One marker under a nail from one hand was found that had the same alleles as an equivalent marker from the underwear. Two markers from JonBenet's other hand were found to have the same alleles as two equivalent markers from the underwear. (In other words, the letter A was found on JonBenet's left hand, the letters A and B were found on her right hand, and the letters A, B, and C were found in the underwear.)

    Now, let us use this example. You have red hair. I have red hair. At the crime scene, DNA is found under the victim's left hand nails, and that DNA belongs to someone with red hair. Does that mean you and I are both the same person and the person who committed the crime, because our hair is red like that found in the DNA at the crime scene? You and I would both say no, because we know we did not do it. The DNA is then examined and found to have markers from a sample under the victim's right hand belonging to someone with red hair and freckles. You have red hair and freckles, but I have red hair and no freckles. This establishes that if our DNA was compared to the crime scene DNA from the right hand, I am exempt, but you are not yet. Then, another DNA sample from the victim's underwear is examined, and it reveals the killer had red hair, freckles, and violet eyes. You have red hair and freckles, but green eyes. You are now eliminated. But there are diehard theorists out there who will insist that you and I are the same person, and that we (as this theoretical single person) killed the victim, because the killer had red hair and we have red hair.

    See? This is what intruder theorists hang part of their theory on. The just-one marker from one of JonBenet's hands that could be found overlapped the just-two markers from JonBenet's other hand. But like your red hair and mine overlap as part of our visual appearance, it does not mean that our red hair belongs to just one person. This is why criminal investigation requires 13 markers, people. Many people have individual markers in common with any DNA sample, but it becomes very unlikely that all 13 markers will overlap and therefore count as a match.

    And, of course, the whole ballgame gets complicated when there is not even any certainty that the markers found belong to just one person. Introduce contamination and innocent transfer to the mix, and what you have is the famous "not a DNA case."
     
  16. Cranberry

    Cranberry New Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the killer wore gloves could the new panties have minute or one marker of cross contamination from wherever the gloves were worn - over a period of days in the winter? The outside of gloves pick up an endless supply of minute DNA I would imagine...
     
  17. ellen13

    ellen13 New Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So call me ignorant, but how exactly would a factory worker leave DNA on her undies?
    I mean, can you leave DNA by fingerprints, or are you saying that a factory worker coughed or sneezed on them while making them. I thought DNA is left by bodily fluid or hair. If so, you're right. the panties were not sterile. I get that.
    why nutt-please go easy on me! I'm a newbie to this. When your statement to me was "it's confounding to think........" I took that as a put down. I don't think what I'm writing sounds that stupid. If anything, I was asking questions.
     
  18. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are asking very reasonable questions, and the "confounding" thought was directed not specifically at you but at all who read our words, the global audience who is always Out There, some of whom I know have expressed the ideas I have issues with.

    Yes, people can leave DNA through many ways other than body fluids and hair. In fact, technically, the fluids do not generate the DNA they contain, it is the solid body surfaces they flow past that shed the cells containing DNA. A simpler way of looking at it is, if it is part of the body, and it is solid, it can leave DNA. If you kiss me, you can leave DNA from your shed lip cells. If you sneeze, the mucous contains DNA from the cells lining the inside of your nose. If you cry, you leave DNA from the cells lining the inside of your tear ducts. If you have urinated, DNA is in the urine from cells shed from your bladder and urethra. If you touch me with your fingertips, friction causes your finger skin to lose DNA from skin cells.

    How could DNA from a factory worker get onto the underwear? Simple. The people who sew the underwear have to touch the cloth, to hold it while it is being cut, and while it is being picked out of a bin of cut portions, and while it is being pushed around under the needle of the sewing machine, and while it is being thrown into the bin where the complete garments are stored. The underwear is then touched when other workers pick it up, and fold it into the shape it will be packed as, and place it into the package. All along this process, the fabric of the underwear is not protected from what humans shed. The people doing the sewing and packing sneeze out mucous, and cough out saliva, and laugh out cells from the linings of their throats, and their fingers are constantly rubbing against the fabric. It would be a shock if freshly-purchased ordinary clothing did not contain DNA foreign to the person who wore it. The key to using it forensically in a criminal case is, does it contain DNA from someone who investigators have other reasons to believe should be suspect. In the Ramsey case, this has not happened, and in my own opinion, it never will.
     
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When we cough and sneeze, we excrete bodily fluids in the form of saliva. DNA is in saliva. In the same way as forensic detectives can identify a person from their saliva on a stamp or envelope or the rim or a cup, they can identify them from a cough or a sneeze.

    The important factor is that the cough/sneeze theory is not just a "BORG" theory - concocted by forum followers. It is one held by those closest to the acse, who have access to ALL of the confidential police files and lab reports. Tom Bennett broke his silence to state that the DNA in the panties was so "miniscule" that it could have been deposited by a cough or a sneeze (where tiny particles of saliva are blown out into the air - which could have been left there by a factory worker.
     
  20. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Therefore in every rape and murder case we must first track down factory workers before we look for rapists and killers.
     
  21. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not quite Sissi, but the FACT that the DNA is NOT on CODIS and is in such miniscule (not to mention degraded) quantities should be given a value rating. Investigators should not ignore good suspects on the basis of evidence which is possibly unrelated to the crime.
     

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