The DNA...

Two separate areas on JB's longjohns were found to have DNA consistent with the unknown DNA found in her underwear that matches none of the Ramseys, nor any person who had provided their DNA to be tested in this case. The national DNA database has 7+ million profiles and is continuously updated, but has also proved to be unsuccessful in providing a match. Does this evidence substantiate or discredit your theory? Is it of any value to the case, in your opinion? Please explain...

Do you even look for threads already existing on the subjects you bring up?

Legal__Eagle wrote:

Do you even look for threads already existing on the subjects you bring up?

No. I'm sorry, I guess I should have.:o/ I have found that a lot of the threads end with topics that don't pertain to the OP anyway. I wanted a "fresh" canvas...

Can you lend me your thoughts regarding the OP? I'd really like to hear your viewpoint...

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I'm sorry, I guess I should have.:o/ I have found that a lot of the threads end with topics that don't pertain to the OP anyway. I wanted a "fresh" canvas...
Can you lend me your thoughts regarding the OP? I'd really like to hear your viewpoint...

I didn't mean to sound so gruff, it's just that when one has been here 6 years discussing the case, it is tough to keep posting the same stuff over and over for every newbie who wants a "fresh canvas".

Here are some links of other threads, just take the space out before the 'j' in jonbenet:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/T3LGK20EBOMVD7 9JT
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/T2M38CVE42GRB8 SFK
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TQ7LMPMSEEUUI0 NU4
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TMCLMVOLF7T3GF 9EO
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TV0H22HLA6VF84 JUL
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TODPKTDUM9EA5K Q27
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TGA5IHRHBI04GV GES
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TGSTPIRA491PMN DO1
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TQ0AMU8KD63OGF HA1
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/T58UQ3VAF2Q2DV 1TU
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TQ5FKG0DODJUEE LUH

Personally, I think it was transfer.

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>I didn't mean to sound so gruff, it's just that when one has been here 6 years discussing the case, it is tough to keep posting the same stuff over and over for every newbie who wants a "fresh canvas".

Here are some links of other threads, just take the space out before the 'j' in jonbenet:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/T3LGK20EBOMVD7 9JT
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/T2M38CVE42GRB8 SFK
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TQ7LMPMSEEUUI0 NU4
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TMCLMVOLF7T3GF 9EO
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TV0H22HLA6VF84 JUL
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TODPKTDUM9EA5K Q27
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TGA5IHRHBI04GV GES
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TGSTPIRA491PMN DO1
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TQ0AMU8KD63OGF HA1
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/T58UQ3VAF2Q2DV 1TU
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/ jonbenet-ramsey/TQ5FKG0DODJUEE LUH

Personally, I think it was transfer.

Thanks, I'll look at the links. Transfer in all 3 locations?

The DNA evidence does not suggest it was due to transfer.

The original unknown DNA was found co-mingled with a drop of JB's blood in her underwear.

A separate lab, years later, found a matching DNA profile in two separate locations on her long johns/PJ pants. This DNA was found by scraping the waistband and the sides of the pants, the most likely parts to have been touched by someone pulling them off/putting them on.

The newest tests, on the long johns, recovered DNA that matched the previously recovered DNA (from the underwear), thus belonging to the same, unidentified male. Further tests were conducted ruling out the possibility that the DNA came from LE or ME personnel.

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.... )

Mama2JML wrote:

The DNA evidence does not suggest it was due to transfer.
The original unknown DNA was found co-mingled with a drop of JB's blood in her underwear.
A separate lab, years later, found a matching DNA profile in two separate locations on her long johns/PJ pants. This DNA was found by scraping the waistband and the sides of the pants, the most likely parts to have been touched by someone pulling them off/putting them on.
The newest tests, on the long johns, recovered DNA that matched the previously recovered DNA (from the underwear), thus belonging to the same, unidentified male. Further tests were conducted ruling out the possibility that the DNA came from LE or ME personnel.
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.... )

The truth is it doesn't say it didn't either. The DNA cannot be dated.

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
The truth is it doesn't say it didn't either. The DNA cannot be dated.

True.

There is a slight possibility that you are correct regarding the "transfer theory". However, the quality of the DNA, the quantity of cells/genetic material recovered, and it's multiple locations suggests that transfer would be highly unlikely.
How might the DNA have been transferred, in your opinion? Please provide a scenario, because I'm having a difficult time understanding the theory of transfer as it relates to this case...

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
True.
There is a slight possibility that you are correct regarding the "transfer theory". However, the quality of the DNA, the quantity of cells/genetic material recovered, and it's multiple locations suggests that transfer would be highly unlikely.
How might the DNA have been transferred, in your opinion? Please provide a scenario, because I'm having a difficult time understanding the theory of transfer as it relates to this case...

Read the threads.

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the threads.

The troll is fishing L_E. Don't bite.

Just call me troll wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I'm sorry, I guess I should have.:o/ I have found that a lot of the threads end with topics that don't pertain to the OP anyway. I wanted a "fresh" canvas...
Can you lend me your thoughts regarding the OP? I'd really like to hear your viewpoint...

You'd really like to manipulate ...

Having fun Cindy?

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
The troll is fishing L_E. Don't bite.

Shhhh - she thinks she has me on the line.

What a clever tactic, BM... When someone presents a topic you don't want to discuss, you sabotage the thread? If you are as intelligent as I had originally assumed, then you would answer my question about the DNA....rather than accuse me of being a troll. Regardless, of the way you have treated me (REPEATEDLY) on this board, I would still consider any answers you might have regarding the DNA evidence. So, would you answer my original questions, any or all of those presented thus far? Thanks.

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>Shhhh - she thinks she has me on the line.

Really, L_E? I hope you are not serious... I, per your request, read over some similar threads. I asked questions, and I'm hoping I get some answers. At this rate, that is very doubtful...

L_E and BM~

Is it so difficult to put aside some of your preconceptions and simply consider evidence that might lead to a different chain of events? I'm not implying that you abandon your entire theory, but I'd like to know how the DNA might be another aspect to your theory. Perhaps it would validate some pieces to your puzzle? Or it could raise doubts regarding opinions you have formed? The DNA has substantially impacted public opinion, and possibly impacted LE's investigation a great deal. I would hope that you have the ability to express your thoughts regarding it's validity, or lack thereof, as it applies to your theory. Theories are meant to be continuously tested and modified until a conclusive, researched hypothesis can be formed.

Actually Mama2

It's a little early for someone so new to focus on the DNA. For someone who is still reading up on the case, my suggestion would be to learn about the events of the night before and following morning, read ST's book and then things like the DNA may look different.

I'm not saying it will change your opinion, but surely you'll have a better handle on it in the context of all of the evidence and how it relates, and if it relates

I agree with Mama2JML.

The Ramsey case DNA business is complicated. What happened is that DNA tests were performed in the initial investigation on JonBenet's body and clothes and that DNA was not Ramsey DNA. It was DNA from an unknown male.

A second blood spot in the panties was tested in 2003 and the longjohn DNA was tested by Bode technology later on, which was exactly the same mystery male DNA. It couldn't come from an Asian sneeze becuse they are two different items of clothing.

The Boulder police and Dr. Henry Lee are not looking for anybody else but the Ramseys in connection to the murder, and they disregard that DNA evidence as not a DNA case.

Lin Wood and Mary Lacy insist that DNA MUST come from the killer. It's just I think that's assuming, which should never be done in a murder investigation. I suppose Lin Wood is just protecting the Ramseys and it's not his job to detect the real killer.

The result of that attitude is that the Ramseys are still under an 'umbrella of suspicion' or there is some vague hope that there might be a DNA hit in CODIS. I don't think that will happen because it's not being investigated who that DNA might belong to.

I admit the Boulder Susannah Chase murder was solved after many years by a DNA hit.

Lou Smit always used to say that if that DNA is identified then that male has some explaining to do, which isn't the same thing as saying it comes from the actual killer. It might come from an accomplice.

There is some waffle on the internet by a DNA expert about all this:

"Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, anticipated this potential misuse of the
technique. In a conversation I had with him in 1995, Mullis jokingly discussed creating a
company called “DN-Anonymous” that would sell highly amplified solutions of DNA
from celebrities, or from large groups of people, that criminals could use to cover their
tracks. Although Mullis was not serious about doing it himself, he predicted that
someone would do so within the next ten years. As far as I know, Mullis’ prediction has
yet to come true, but it may only be a matter of time before materials designed to stymie
DNA tests (by planting other people’s DNA at crime scenes) become available for sale
on the internet along with kits designed to thwart drug tests.

The Need for Transparency

Do innocent people really have nothing to fear from inclusion in government
DNA databases? It should now be clear to readers that this claim is overstated. If your
profile is in a DNA database you face higher risk than other citizens of being falsely
linked to a crime. You are at higher risk of false incriminations by coincidental DNA
matches, by laboratory error, and by intentional planting of DNA."

Can you point us all in the direction of the report where it says the unknown DNA is the ONLY DNA that was found?

That would be much appreciated Henri. I'm sure you have it somewhere in your files, based on you being the know it all expert on the case

TIA

Capricorn wrote:

Can you point us all in the direction of the report where it says the unknown DNA is the ONLY DNA that was found?
That would be much appreciated Henri. I'm sure you have it somewhere in your files, based on you being the know it all expert on the case
TIA

Ooops! Henri must have left JUST before you posted! LOL

Capricorn wrote:

Can you point us all in the direction of the report where it says the unknown DNA is the ONLY DNA that was found?
That would be much appreciated Henri. I'm sure you have it somewhere in your files, based on you being the know it all expert on the case
TIA

Hi Capricorn,
Of course no one can give you any such source.
Obviously, on JB, they had her DNA, and most likely, there was Ramsey DNA all over the place, but it was discounted as "normal". Of course, without an official report, anything can be said.

To say "The unknown DNA was consitent with another DNA of ANY source" would be a very broad statement, because if only a couple of markers matched, which is almost ALWAYS the case, they could be considered "consistent" with each other.

In a DNA mixture, you CAN eliminate a person as a contributor, but you CANNOT positively identify a person as a contributor if you cannot separate the mixture.

In the JB case, the family shares the same chromosomes, but you CAN eliminate them as possible contributors in some cases, but it is UNLIKELY because Burke shares most of the same chromosomes, and each parent shares more than 50% of JB's chromosomes. The reason is that although the breakdown is about a 50%, both parents should have some matching chromosomes.
CC