DNA Evidence

I am trying to find out info on the dna that was found and keep finding conflicting information on the web. Can someone in the know answer a few questions?

First off, was the dna found in her underwear from saliva or blood?
Did the dna from under her fingernails match the dna in her underwear or were these from 2 different sources?
What is the race of the donor of the dna sample...I've read it was from a white male and have also read it is from an asian male?
The explanation I have heard is that the dna was probably deposited on the underwear during manufacturing and the underwear was made in a country where people have a habbit of spitting. Is it possible to determine whether the panties had ever been washed before JB wore them that night?
Is there somewhere to find OBJECTIVE information about this topic?
Anyone?

[Louisadelmar]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Is%...a%20DNA%20Case

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it didn't answer many of my questions because there was so much conflicting evidence.
Also I couldn't find anywhere where they addressed whether or not the dna in the underwear and the dna under the fingernails was a match. Can anyone weigh in on this?

This should answer at least some of your questions:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence
The reality is, there's uncertain and sometimes conflicting information about the DNA so everyone has to make up their own mind what it all means based on the evidence available. The wiki's tried to lay out the evidence in as objective a fashion as feasible: it's not perfect (yet :-) but we're doing our best. If you just ask opinions about all the questions you posed, I guarantee you won't get a uniform set of responses, in part because the only people who know ALL the available DNA evidence are investigators who for the most part currently are not divulging either what they know or what they've concluded.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Originally Posted by Miss Marple

This should answer at least some of your questions:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence
The reality is, there's uncertain and sometimes conflicting information about the DNA so everyone has to make up their own mind what it all means based on the evidence available. The wiki's tried to lay out the evidence in as objective a fashion as feasible: it's not perfect (yet :-) but we're doing our best. If you just ask opinions about all the questions you posed, I guarantee you won't get a uniform set of responses, in part because the only people who know ALL the available DNA evidence are investigators who for the most part currently are not divulging either what they know or what they've concluded.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

I wish they would share. The one thing about dna that I really appreciate is that, unlike handwriting, behaviour etc, it's objective. There is no maybe-maybe not. Either it's a match or it isn't. I would LOVE some objective evidence in this case.

[nuisanceposter]

EL, the only people to ever say the DNA under the fingernails and the DNA in the underwear match were RST (Ramsey Spin Team). No one who wasn't hired by the RST has ever said that the two samples of DNA match (other than Erin Moriarty repeating what the RST said.)

I have asked for any source unrelated to the RST stating that the samples are a match, and no one has ever been able to provide one. It is my understanding that the fingernail DNA has too few markers to conclusively match it to anything else, and since all DNA has certain standard similarities, it is on these standard similarities that the RST base their claim of it being a match.

Patsy has said in the past that JonBenet didn't bathe that day and that she wasn't that interested in washing her hands. It's quite possible that the DNA under her nails had been there since before Christmas night.

Dr Henry Lee tested the same kind of underwear that JonBenet was found in, sold by Bloomies. He found DNA on brand new, unwashed, never worn undies, DNA which was deposited on the undies at the time of manufacture. Due to this, I think it is extremely likely that the DNA in JonBenet's undies had been there before her mother even bought that package of underwear - especially when the sample of foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded and JonBenet's wasn't.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

EL, the only people to ever say the DNA under the fingernails and the DNA in the underwear match were RST (Ramsey Spin Team). No one who wasn't hired by the RST has ever said that the two samples of DNA match (other than Erin Moriarty repeating what the RST said.)

I have asked for any source unrelated to the RST stating that the samples are a match, and no one has ever been able to provide one. It is my understanding that the fingernail DNA has too few markers to conclusively match it to anything else, and since all DNA has certain standard similarities, it is on these standard similarities that the RST base their claim of it being a match.

Patsy has said in the past that JonBenet didn't bathe that day and that she wasn't that interested in washing her hands. It's quite possible that the DNA under her nails had been there since before Christmas night.

Dr Henry Lee tested the same kind of underwear that JonBenet was found in, sold by Bloomies. He found DNA on brand new, unwashed, never worn undies, DNA which was deposited on the undies at the time of manufacture. Due to this, I think it is extremely likely that the DNA in JonBenet's undies had been there before her mother even bought that package of underwear - especially when the sample of foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded and JonBenet's wasn't.

NP: I do agree that the match has only been stated in the report that Moriarity did. RE: Henry Lee tested those underwear PRIOR to the DNA being isolated in 2003. He has even admitted that new technology has improved the testing of DNA and because he has not been involved in the case for years he could not comment on new DNA evidence. The DNA that was fragmented and degraded were under JBR's fingernails. I will look for the link.

[nuisanceposter]

Thanks, Athena, I'd like to see it.

The DNA in both locations, under her nails and in her undies, was fragmented and degraded. JonBenet's DNA, obtained from a drop of her blood in her undies, was fresh and complete.

[Athena]

NP: I did have more links but unfortunately they are now dead. I had posted an article about Lee on the old CTV board but looks like we can't even view it anymore. Anyway.....

LEE: Well, the DNA, they found some foreign DNA. One source of DNA is found on her underpants, with some small amount of bloodstain. The second one is from fingernail scrapings. Those DNA are already analyzed by Boulder, Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Laboratory. So those DNA are really in digital form. So the time aging is no longer an issue. The DNA are already exact. The profile is already made. So right now, basically the collection is no DNA and transfer that to digital form and compare it with the question DNA found on Jon Benet Ramsey's underpants and fingernails.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...18/lkl.06.html

The Rocky Mountain News wrote on April 26, 2003 that Dr. Henry Lee, "the most prominent criminologist to work on the JonBenet Ramsey case remains unsure whether the child was murdered or died in what started as an accident."

Dr. Lee had not been consulted by the new D.A. and he acknowledged that there "may be significant new evidence in the cases since his last involvement."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...ramsey/18.html

[watson]

Great question elvislives about the DNA evidence. I think you got some good answers in this thread already but let me chime in too. Here's what we in the public really know about the DNA evidence in this case.
First, no whole, complete and independent foreign DNA was ever found or exists in this case. Of all the tested samples that they got DNA from, they were all the victims own DNA EXCEPT 3 samples. All 3 of these samples were mostly the victims own DNA too, but mixed in with her DNA in these 3 (the 2 underwear bloodspots, and possibly from under her fingernails) were lesser amounts of foreign DNA. No one knows if this foreign DNA is from 1 person or a mixture of people. Since it wasn't complete no one knows where it came from (breath, saliva, skin oil, sweat etc.). The media has always said it is male. The indication is that the foreign DNA in the underwear bloodspots does not match that in the 3rd sample (presumably from under the nails), but we in the public can't be sure of this. Using new technology they were able to enhance the foreign DNA from the underwear, and make a profile of it. According to Cold Case Files 2006 the profile is only 10/13 complete, so they won't be able to make an exact match with it, just an aproximate one. The profile may not be that of any existing individual since it could be from a combination of people. If it is from one individual it could have gotten there innocently (like the factory worker story, or from contamination). It's been placed in the DNA data base and no match has yet been found. If it is from one real individual (and no one can say it is) it can't have come from the Ramsey family.
The part of the DNA report released to the public reads as follows...........

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L, and 14m revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey. If the minor components from exhibits #7,14L, and 14m were contributed by a single individual, then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, and xxxxxx would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.

Where the x's stand for names that are blacked out on the report.

[watson]

P.S. to my post above in response to elvislives re DNA report released to public.....I didn't look carefully enough at the report, it does say that exhibit #7 is from the bloodspot on the underwear, and 14L and 14m, are from figernails of the right and left hand. So we also know the DNA evidence such as it is DID come from the nails and the bloodspot, everything else in my above post is accurate.

[shill]

So the DNA under the fingernails of her right and left hand are a match to the DNA on the underwear according to that report, which would rule out the DNA on the underwear being from a factory worker or contamination.

[nuisanceposter]

No, shill, that's not what it said. You missed the word "if."

[watson]

So the DNA under the fingernails of her right and left hand are a match to the DNA on the underwear according to that report, which would rule out the DNA on the underwear being from a factory worker or contamination.[/QUOTE FROM SHILL)
.................................................. ..............

I'd have to say 'no' shill the report (as far as released) doesn't say that. I copied it exactley and in the first line word number 3 it says 'profiles' plural. That's not an error, it's talking about more than 1 profile and lumping all 3 exhibits together. Nowhere does it say that the 'profiles' are the same, and if they were it should say so in this paragraph. Since they can't be sure if any of the DNA they found is from 1 individual it seems they wouldn't be able to say if it was from the same individual.
I have heard some team Ramsey spokesmen say the DNA on the nderwear is 'consistent' with that under the nails, a strange word to use (consistent) because it doesn't mean 'the same' or 'a match', just that it could be.
P.S. No ones says that all the 'profiles' mentioned in this lab report are CODICE worthy or full profiles, only 1 profile (from the bloodspot on the underwear #7) could be enhanced to 10/13 full and put into CODICE, and there is no proof (as above) that this profile is the 'same' as that under the nails.

[shill]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

No, shill, that's not what it said. You missed the word "if."

Yes, I did miss that. Much different.

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by elvislives

I am trying to find out info on the dna that was found and keep finding conflicting information on the web. Can someone in the know answer a few questions?

First off, was the dna found in her underwear from saliva or blood?
Did the dna from under her fingernails match the dna in her underwear or were these from 2 different sources?
What is the race of the donor of the dna sample...I've read it was from a white male and have also read it is from an asian male?
The explanation I have heard is that the dna was probably deposited on the underwear during manufacturing and the underwear was made in a country where people have a habbit of spitting. Is it possible to determine whether the panties had ever been washed before JB wore them that night?
Is there somewhere to find OBJECTIVE information about this topic?
Anyone?

elvis, this is an excerpt from an interview of Lin Wood, the Ramsey attorney on Larry King Live, July 11 2003.

WOOD: Because of the DNA. You know, you probably heard along the way that the DNA evidence in this case was not necessarily of good quality, that it might even be contaminant. Although there was a point in time when the Boulder police were clearing people based on DNA, but not the Ramseys.

Here's what we now know. We knew that there was foreign male DNA found in -- under the fingernails of both of JonBenet's hands. Foreign meaning it was not the Ramseys. Male.

There was also a spot of blood. Intermingled in that blood was foreign male DNA. Not the Ramseys.

Now, I've learned in the last few months, since Mary Keenan took this case over, that in fact, there was a second spot of blood, both of these spots of blood being in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear.

In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.

And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODUS (ph) databank.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Watson --<snip> I have heard some team Ramsey spokesmen say the DNA on the nderwear is 'consistent' with that under the nails, a strange word to use (consistent) because it doesn't mean 'the same' or 'a match', just that it could be." (snip) Okay Watson, so "consistent with" means the same thing when they are speaking of the red fibers matching PR's jacket, or her handwriting matching the RN, but does NOT mean the same thing when speaking of the two cources of DNA. At least according to the RDIs.

[watson]

[ Okay Watson, so "consistent with" means the same thing when they are speaking of the red fibers matching PR's jacket, or her handwriting matching the RN, but does NOT mean the same thing when speaking of the two cources of DNA. At least according to the RDIs.[/quote]

Well I'm not trying to split hairs with words. The word 'consistent' was used by a JR professional PI in a documentary, I'm sure it was checked by professional editors, and professional legal persons. Looking up old Websters synonym for 'consistent' I get 'compatible' BUT compatible certainly doesn't mean the same or an exact match. I'm sure that any professional writer, editor, PI, or lawyer would have the basic ability of those professions to choose the strongest word. So, I guess my point was they didn't say it was an exact match because THEY COULDN'T and still be professional.
Certainly the same goes for so called fiber evidence, of hairs, fibers etc......consistent....means that they are the same in size, color, general type, etc., but they have to stop short of saying they are the 'same' or an exact match, because they can't say those things, as either the evidence isn't capable of showing an exact match or the material is not an exact match.

[watson]

[quote=aussiesheila;8788568]elvis, this is an excerpt from an interview of Lin Wood, the Ramsey attorney on Larry King Live, July 11 2003.

WOOD: Because of the DNA. You know, you probably heard along the way that the DNA evidence in this case was not necessarily of good quality, that it might even be contaminant. Although there was a point in time when the Boulder police were clearing people based on DNA, but not the Ramseys.

Here's what we now know. We knew that there was foreign male DNA found in -- under the fingernails of both of JonBenet's hands. Foreign meaning it was not the Ramseys. Male.

There was also a spot of blood. Intermingled in that blood was foreign male DNA. Not the Ramseys.
*************************************************
To AussieShelia...

I believe Lin Wood is John Ramsey's lawyer (or was), I could be wrong in this. But, assuming he is JR's legal advocate, as lawyer and 'advocate' for his client he is allowed and in fact 'required' to advance the strongest position in his estimation that the evidence could 'possibly' bare for his client.
It looks like he did his duty in your quote. The actual DNA report says that 'foreign' DNA was found mixed with the victims DNA under her nails and in the bloodspot in the underwear (see report). By 'foreign' in this lab report it is clear the writer as in all such lab reports meant 'foreign' to the body upon which it was found. In the next paragraph of the report the 'foreign' DNA to JB's body, was tested, and the results are clear....'IF' it was from one individual and not a mixture of several, or DNA contamination (and no one knows if it is or not) then the entire Ramsey family male and female could be excluded as being the source of that DNA (and it would be as Lin Wood said 'foreign' to that family).
IMO it looks like Lin Wood in his statement that you quote was just doing his professional job of going as far as he could in stating the evidence on behalf of his clients interest (as he sees it) as he could.
This is just WHY any of us IMO should look at the original evidence, and the actual reports (all avaiable to us thank God) and decide for ourselveses. Afterall...authors want to sell books, lawyers advocate for their clients, tv hosts want big ratings,....etc., but the truth and facts are still the truth and facts and are always there in the original evidence.

Originally Posted by watson

[ Okay Watson, so "consistent with" means the same thing when they are speaking of the red fibers matching PR's jacket, or her handwriting matching the RN, but does NOT mean the same thing when speaking of the two cources of DNA. At least according to the RDIs.

Well I'm not trying to split hairs with words. The word 'consistent' was used by a JR professional PI in a documentary, I'm sure it was checked by professional editors, and professional legal persons. Looking up old Websters synonym for 'consistent' I get 'compatible' BUT compatible certainly doesn't mean the same or an exact match. I'm sure that any professional writer, editor, PI, or lawyer would have the basic ability of those professions to choose the strongest word. So, I guess my point was they didn't say it was an exact match because THEY COULDN'T and still be professional.
Certainly the same goes for so called fiber evidence, of hairs, fibers etc......consistent....means that they are the same in size, color, general type, etc., but they have to stop short of saying they are the 'same' or an exact match, because they can't say those things, as either the evidence isn't capable of showing an exact match or the material is not an exact match.[/quote]

Just to clarify, the term "consistent with" when referring to dna is generally considered to be synonomous with "exact match", but there is no such thing as an exact match with dna since there are people (identical twins e.g.) who have the same dna based on the current modality of analysis. Scientists tend to be exact in their wording so they never say "exact match" when they describe dna evidence...they usually give it in statistics. E.g. when OJ Simpsons blood was compared to the blood found at the crime scene, they did not say it was an exact match but rather that it was consistent with the sample within a probability of something like (I'm guessing here) 23 billion to one (again I cant remember the exact #s and dont feel like looking it up). But for all intents and purposes when they say dna is "consistent with" and there are at least 10 markers it is considered an exact match, unless of course the suspect is an identical.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by watson

[...]
This is just WHY any of us IMO should look at the original evidence, and the actual reports (all avaiable to us thank God) and decide for ourselveses. Afterall...authors want to sell books, lawyers advocate for their clients, tv hosts want big ratings,....etc., but the truth and facts are still the truth and facts and are always there in the original evidence.

It seems to me there is a dearth of actual reports available.

[Evening2]

I've been wondering about something. I don't really know TOO much about DNA testing and what test results can and do show. But here's a hypothetical question. IF the DNA WAS planted (as I believe it was), could TWO people have deliberately MIXED DNA together, e.g. saliva from more than one person "mixed" together (yukky, I know) and then have planted that MIXED DNA at the crime scene where we know degraded and contaminated DNA has been found? And, if this WAS done, what would tests of that MIXED DNA show?

I would appreciate any input in this regard and I thank you for any information you can provide. TIA

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by Evening2

I've been wondering about something. I don't really know TOO much about DNA testing and what test results can and do show. But here's a hypothetical question. IF the DNA WAS planted (as I believe it was), could TWO people have deliberately MIXED DNA together, e.g. saliva from more than one person "mixed" together (yukky, I know) and then have planted that MIXED DNA at the crime scene where we know degraded and contaminated DNA has been found? And, if this WAS done, what would tests of that MIXED DNA show?

I would appreciate any input in this regard and I thank you for any information you can provide. TIA

I don't know much about DNA either but I have a similar question in my writeup explaining my theories:

DID HER KILLER LEAVE DNA?

Is it possible that toilet water was used to wash her down and the weak DNA traces from the toilet water comingled with her blood in the panties? Then if so the DNA would be as we see it...weak, from more than one donor, having markers relating to the Ramseys. If so, the DNA in her panties and under her nails is no more than a mirage.


It seems possible to me that the DNA is from more than one person, and just partial for each. It does not match Ramseys' but to my understanding it contains some markers that match Ramseys'. They always claimed that the DNA was degraded and weak and from "one or more" contributors. But I really don't know enough to answer my own question, let alone Eve2's. Besides, according to the anagrams, they know whose DNA it is but they just aren't telling.

[Eagle1]

Originally Posted by Evening2

I've been wondering about something. I don't really know TOO much about DNA testing and what test results can and do show. But here's a hypothetical question. IF the DNA WAS planted (as I believe it was), could TWO people have deliberately MIXED DNA together, e.g. saliva from more than one person "mixed" together (yukky, I know) and then have planted that MIXED DNA at the crime scene where we know degraded and contaminated DNA has been found? And, if this WAS done, what would tests of that MIXED DNA show?

I would appreciate any input in this regard and I thank you for any information you can provide. TIA

If I were into such criminal activities I sure wouldn't want my DNA involved, tho', not even if mixed deliberately with someone else's.

[Evening2]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

If I were into such criminal activities I sure wouldn't want my DNA involved, tho', not even if mixed deliberately with someone else's.

Well, neither would I, Eagle1, but then you and I aren't deranged like the killer's of JonBenet were. No, they had a very different point of view - and wanted very specific results. I'm just wondering what such a mixture would show in the testing of such a sample?

[Kor]

Originally Posted by Evening2

Well, neither would I, Eagle1, but then you and I aren't deranged like the killer's of JonBenet were. No, they had a very different point of view - and wanted very specific results. I'm just wondering what such a mixture would show in the testing of such a sample?

I assumed they can separate and identify each person out of a blood pool from several people. I may be wrong, but I thought the two different DNA cannot be merge into one unless they are a sperm and an egg. Blood may mix with another, but DNA codes are different like snowflakes but cannot be merge like oil and water except for creating a new life. IMO

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by Kor

I assumed they can separate and identify each person out of a blood pool from several people. I may be wrong, but I thought the two different DNA cannot be merge into one unless they are a sperm and an egg. Blood may mix with another, but DNA codes are different like snowflakes but cannot be merge like oil and water except for creating a new life. IMO

I'm not so sure about that. I think they can take the mixed blood and subtract JonBenet's, but what is left is not really divisible into different donors. Let me make a sort of analogy of what I think. Let's say JonBenet's blood is identified by a number like 6432. And the whole smear is something like 18093. If you subtract JonBenet's from the whole, you get another number which is a composite of one or more other people. So 18093 minus 6432 leaves 11751, but if it is from more than one donor you can't tell what the number is for them. I know it is not exactly like that but that is my way to explain what I am thinking. It's my opinion.

[Kor]

Originally Posted by Mikie

I'm not so sure about that. I think they can take the mixed blood and subtract JonBenet's, but what is left is not really divisible into different donors. Let me make a sort of analogy of what I think. Let's say JonBenet's blood is identified by a number like 6432. And the whole smear is something like 18093. If you subtract JonBenet's from the whole, you get another number which is a composite of one or more other people. So 18093 minus 6432 leaves 11751, but if it is from more than one donor you can't tell what the number is for them. I know it is not exactly like that but that is my way to explain what I am thinking. It's my opinion.

I believe I understand your meaning, and I think it makes sense. Even if it a needle in haystack, I think they still can find one specific strain of a DNA from a blood pool mix of several people’s, it just take longer doing it. I always see DNA as code, but I never thought of blood smears have to be divide and process for DNA to be identified. I can see why there may be some complications about it. IMO

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by Kor

I believe I understand your meaning, and I think it makes sense. Even if it a needle in haystack, I think they still can find one specific strain of a DNA from a blood pool mix of several people’s, it just take longer doing it. I always see DNA as code, but I never thought of blood smears have to be divide and process for DNA to be identified. I can see why there may be some complications about it. IMO

If they can zoom in on a collection of cells with an electron microscope and then somehow separate the cells and then take each cell and test the DNA in each cell separately, then I can see how they could come up with DNA for each cell. But I don't think they can do that. The markers for DNA are determined not by looking at them but by looking at some kind of indirect means. I don't know exactly what that means is, but I have seen DNA marker results. The marker results seem to indicate a yes or no answer for certain parts of the DNA chain. It's either yes, the marker is there, or no, it is not. So then by looking at numerous marker possibilities, they are able to identify individual DNA marker characteristics, and compare to others. I really wish I knew more. I will try to study this and understand it better.

Here's a site that explains DNA testing for people who aren't in the field.
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

[SuperDave]

Anyone here ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Let me hit the highlights. In 1988, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry went missing. Dennis Dechaine was found near the body. The evidence in his truck nailed him. He confessed. Case closed? Not on your life. There are people trying to free him based on DNA evidence on Cherry's hands. Well, hate to break it to them, but the world is loaded with human DNA. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

Same deal here. When Karr was arrested, Bill O'Reilly did a piece with a criminologist. He asked if it was really possible that the DNA in her murder could be just random stuff like you'd find at any crime scene. Her answer? Yes. She even said that as DNA testing science becomes more advanced, the likelihood of finding irrelevant DNA increases with it.

Oh, and just so everybody knows: when the Rs and Linny-Winny claim that the police used the DNA to eliminate people, they are flat-out lying, and I know that because, if you read ST's court deposition, you will see that he says that no one was cleared solely because to the DNA. It was because they either had solid alibis or there was nothing that put them in the house that night. And you don't have to take my word for it.

[Louisadelmar]

Linny-Winny?

[SuperDave]

Just a little joke.

[lodfafner]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Anyone here ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Let me hit the highlights. In 1988, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry went missing. Dennis Dechaine was found near the body. The evidence in his truck nailed him. He confessed. Case closed? Not on your life. There are people trying to free him based on DNA evidence on Cherry's hands. Well, hate to break it to them, but the world is loaded with human DNA. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

Very true SD.

We also have cases of false positives like Peter Hamkin. DNA "proved" he was the killer of a girl in Italy but 20 witnesses proved he was in England at the time of the murder. He was cleared on "other evidence".

[Athena]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

<snip>

Oh, and just so everybody knows: when the Rs and Linny-Winny claim that the police used the DNA to eliminate people, they are flat-out lying, and I know that because, if you read ST's court deposition, you will see that he says that no one was cleared solely because to the DNA. It was because they either had solid alibis or there was nothing that put them in the house that night. And you don't have to take my word for it.

There were quite a few suspects who did not have solid alibis. They may have been home and said they went to bed but that is NOT a solid alibi. Wolf's whereabouts are still unknown.

PMPT p664

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive because of possible contamination and yet the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by those tests. Scheck said "You can't say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn't match. You can't have your cake and eat it." He recommended further RFLP and newer types of PCR testing. Most of the audience believed that the DNA results were the weakest part of the presentation.

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by Athena

There were quite a few suspects who did not have solid alibis. They may have been home and said they went to bed but that is NOT a solid alibi. Wolf's whereabouts are still unknown.

PMPT p664

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive because of possible contamination and yet the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by those tests. Scheck said "You can't say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn't match. You can't have your cake and eat it." He recommended further RFLP and newer types of PCR testing. Most of the audience believed that the DNA results were the weakest part of the presentation.

Thanks for posting that Athena. I haven't read the latest version of PMPT and it's been years since I read the last one. I've always wondered at Mary Lacy's statement that JMK was cleared on the basis of the DNA. Seems to me that LE has been flip-flopping on this issue.

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by LindaA

Thanks for posting that Athena. I haven't read the latest version of PMPT and it's been years since I read the last one. I've always wondered at Mary Lacy's statement that JMK was cleared on the basis of the DNA. Seems to me that LE has been flip-flopping on this issue.

I don't recall Simmons ever being cleared by DNA, yet he has no alibi. White's alibi has never been mentioned, although I believe he was cleared because he asked to be cleared. Wolf refused to give an alibi and also refused to give handwriting samples. McReynolds were cleared based on being in bed at 8pm. Oliva was cleared by DNA. Karr, also.

[SuperDave]

Louisa, you know how dem dar Sheriffs are. They mosey on into town, bow-legged and wearin' a 10-gallon head, and stomp around in their "snakeskin" high-heel boots, with their BIG GUNS drawn. Only thing is, after all is said and done, we find hir's been doing nuttin' but pumpin' blanks!!!

I have to admit, I found that very amusing. But I'm a "substance" kind of guy.

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive because of possible contamination and yet the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by those tests. Scheck said "You can't say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn't match. You can't have your cake and eat it." He recommended further RFLP and newer types of PCR testing. Most of the audience believed that the DNA results were the weakest part of the presentation.

I read that passage. But it is slightly inaccurate. Especially since Barry Scheck himself now claims that the DNA is irrelevant to the case. Don't take my word for it:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/free...p?OpenDocument

I've always wondered at Mary Lacy's statement that JMK was cleared on the basis of the DNA.

Actually, she said he wasn't cleared based on that. She said that he was released when it didn't match because his story was such that it would HAVE to be his. Big difference.

There were quite a few suspects who did not have solid alibis. They may have been home and said they went to bed but that is NOT a solid alibi. Wolf's whereabouts are still unknown.

You overlooked the other part of what I said. What evidence is there that they, specifically, were in the house?

[Riviera]

Let's stop with rude comments and get back on topic----> DNA Evidence

Thank you
R

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Anyone here ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Let me hit the highlights. In 1988, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry went missing. Dennis Dechaine was found near the body. The evidence in his truck nailed him. He confessed. Case closed? Not on your life. There are people trying to free him based on DNA evidence on Cherry's hands. Well, hate to break it to them, but the world is loaded with human DNA. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

Same deal here. When Karr was arrested, Bill O'Reilly did a piece with a criminologist. He asked if it was really possible that the DNA in her murder could be just random stuff like you'd find at any crime scene. Her answer? Yes. She even said that as DNA testing science becomes more advanced, the likelihood of finding irrelevant DNA increases with it.

Oh, and just so everybody knows: when the Rs and Linny-Winny claim that the police used the DNA to eliminate people, they are flat-out lying, and I know that because, if you read ST's court deposition, you will see that he says that no one was cleared solely because to the DNA. It was because they either had solid alibis or there was nothing that put them in the house that night. And you don't have to take my word for it.

Oh boy, we got somebody that thinks that Synthroid Stevie is relevant to this case beyond his stealing of his case notes to help him write his tell-all tome; the same guy that claimed that his thyroid condition was caused by the case. Of course, as everyone knows, he just wanted a disability pension, so that he could kick back and enjoy a well earned rest; after all he was involved in what, one homicide investigation? Woooie! Shazam! I bet the Synthroid Superman claimed expertise in DNA, too.

[SuperDave]

He did? News to me, bullmoose.