More potential DNA Confusion!?

More potential DNA Confusion!?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Dying2know

San Diego, CA

#1 Sep 18, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna... ;
Unless they can find that anonymous donor with the partial profile, who knows what they found in poor Jonbenet's undergarments.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#2 Sep 19, 2013
Thank you very much for this article.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3 Sep 19, 2013
From the article, as it applies to Forensic DNA:

"Medical researchers aren’t the only scientists interested in our multitudes of personal genomes. So are forensic scientists. When they attempt to identify criminals or murder victims by matching DNA, they want to avoid being misled by the variety of genomes inside a single person.

Last year, for example, forensic scientists at the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory Division described how a saliva sample and a sperm sample from the same suspect in a sexual assault case didn’t match.

Bone marrow transplants can also confound forensic scientists. Researchers at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria took cheek swabs from 77 people who had received transplants up to nine years earlier. In 74 percent of the samples, they found a mix of genomes — both their own and those from the marrow donors, the scientists reported this year. The transplanted stem cells hadn’t just replaced blood cells, but had also become cells lining the cheek.

While the risk of confusion is real, it is manageable, experts said.'This should not be much of a concern for forensics,' said Manfred Kayser, a professor of Forensic Molecular Biology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. In the cases where mosaicism or chimerism causes confusion, forensic scientists can clear it up by other means. In the Austrian study, for example, the scientists found no marrow donor genomes in the hair of the recipients."
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#4 Sep 20, 2013
The article was fascinating.

So if police collect DNA from a person's saliva, it may not match the identity of the perp even though he is the guilty party?

Will the police need to collect DNA from multiple sources of the body in order to get a clear identity of the suspect?(Or is that already a common practice?) And how will they know which DNA sample is credible and accurate? A suspect may be tied to the crime if they check his hair, but not if they swab his cheek?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5 Sep 20, 2013
Quote form the article (emphasis added):
While the risk of confusion is real, it is manageable, experts said.THIS SHOULD NOT BE MUCH OF A CONCERN FOR FORENSICS, said Manfred Kayser, a professor of Forensic Molecular Biology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. In the cases where mosaicism or chimerism causes confusion, forensic scientists can clear it up by other means. In the Austrian study, for example, the scientists found no marrow donor genomes in the hair of the recipients. http://tinyurl.com/kub7299
...

AK

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#6 Sep 21, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
"Bone marrow transplants can also confound forensic scientists. Researchers at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria took cheek swabs from 77 people who had received transplants up to nine years earlier. In 74 percent of the samples, they found a mix of genomes both their own and those from the marrow donors, the scientists reported this year. The transplanted stem cells hadn't just replaced blood cells, but had also become cells lining the cheek."
Making it possible Patsy was responsible for the degraded 'latent' unidentifiable DNA depending on the exact nature of the experimental treatments - procedures and substances given.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#7 Sep 21, 2013
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT000...

If I'm understanding this right - this Ovarian Cancer trial from where Patsy received her experimental treatment - it has a start date of 1994 and did include bone marrow cells but autologous bone marrow - one's own cells. It also included peripheral blood stem cell transplantation which would be from donor sources.

Was Patsy's specific trial ever documented?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#8 Sep 22, 2013
moonjack wrote:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT00002600

If I'm understanding this right - this Ovarian Cancer trial from where Patsy received her experimental treatment - it has a start date of 1994 and did include bone marrow cells but autologous bone marrow - one's own cells. It also included peripheral blood stem cell transplantation which would be from donor sources.

Was Patsy's specific trial ever documented?
According to the Woman's Magazine article, published before JonBenet's death, Patsy received her treatments @ the Nat'l Cancer Institute in Bethesda, MD.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.p...

The information re: the clinical trial you linked was provided by the NCI, but the locations are listed as:

"United States, Maryland
Johns Hopkins Oncology Center
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21231

Marlene & Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21201".

Does this mean the trial was conducted @ 1 of 2 locations in Baltimore? I'm really not sure...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#9 Sep 22, 2013
moonjack wrote:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT00002600
If I'm understanding this right - this Ovarian Cancer trial from where Patsy received her experimental treatment - it has a start date of 1994 and did include bone marrow cells but autologous bone marrow - one's own cells. It also included peripheral blood stem cell transplantation which would be from donor sources.
Was Patsy's specific trial ever documented?
I'm sure it was. Her name wouldn't be used. The Feds paid for her entire treatment, and they do that so they can use the data from her treatment in perfecting the treatment. She mentioned that her ovarian cancer was hereditary in one interview.

I read the chapter in DOI pertaining to her cancer to a cancer MD. He wasn't as convinced as she was that God healed her, but rather the chemo did, he said with her type of cancer, either you react well to the chemo and live, or it doesn't work and you die.

I always wondered why she tempted fate as she did by smoking...

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#10 Sep 22, 2013
Psychoactive effects

Nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#11 Jul 7, 2016
Eight years ago tomorrow, July 8, then District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote a letter to John Ramsey ONLY clearing all three Ramseys that were in the house when JonBenet was murdered, based on results of touch DNA testing on both sides of the longjohns JonBenet was wearing when she was murdered. Lacy cleared the Ramseys because she said that touch DNA belonged to THE PERPETRATOR OF THS CRIME, i.e., the LONG ELUSIVE "real killer."

In the July 11th issue of "In Touch weekly, Denver police forensic DNA specialist, Greggory LeBerge is quoted as saying "Investigators must be careful not to put all the wight in the investigation on the DNA" adding the DNA COULD BE MISLEADING, depending on who it matches, or doesn't match." That's what WE have said all along, and Lacy said the same thing previously also. So that unsourced DNA is not enough to clear someone or not BECAUSE IT COULD BE AN ARTIFACT, NOT the real killer's DNA. It has matched NO ONE in the 12 years it has been in CODIS.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#12 Jul 8, 2016
candy wrote:
Eight years ago tomorrow, July 8, then District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote a letter to John Ramsey ONLY clearing all three Ramseys that were in the house when JonBenet was murdered, based on results of touch DNA testing on both sides of the longjohns JonBenet was wearing when she was murdered. Lacy cleared the Ramseys because she said that touch DNA belonged to THE PERPETRATOR OF THS CRIME, i.e., the LONG ELUSIVE "real killer."

In the July 11th issue of "In Touch weekly, Denver police forensic DNA specialist, Greggory LeBerge is quoted as saying "Investigators must be careful not to put all the wight in the investigation on the DNA" adding the DNA COULD BE MISLEADING, depending on who it matches, or doesn't match." That's what WE have said all along, and Lacy said the same thing previously also. So that unsourced DNA is not enough to clear someone or not BECAUSE IT COULD BE AN ARTIFACT, NOT the real killer's DNA. It has matched NO ONE in the 12 years it has been in CODIS.
AMEN!!!

Since: Dec 14

Location hidden

#13 Jul 9, 2016
candy wrote:
Eight years ago tomorrow, July 8, then District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote a letter to John Ramsey ONLY clearing all three Ramseys that were in the house when JonBenet was murdered, based on results of touch DNA testing on both sides of the longjohns JonBenet was wearing when she was murdered. Lacy cleared the Ramseys because she said that touch DNA belonged to THE PERPETRATOR OF THS CRIME, i.e., the LONG ELUSIVE "real killer."

In the July 11th issue of "In Touch weekly, Denver police forensic DNA specialist, Greggory LeBerge is quoted as saying "Investigators must be careful not to put all the wight in the investigation on the DNA" adding the DNA COULD BE MISLEADING, depending on who it matches, or doesn't match." That's what WE have said all along, and Lacy said the same thing previously also. So that unsourced DNA is not enough to clear someone or not BECAUSE IT COULD BE AN ARTIFACT, NOT the real killer's DNA. It has matched NO ONE in the 12 years it has been in CODIS.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times it is said, or how many different ways it is explained, those who don't want to except it never will. It is really the only thing the RST have to suggest someone else commtted this murder.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#14 Jul 9, 2016
@Jolomom: I agree, but we can put the info on posts where pro-Rams try to say the DNA clears the Ramseys and the media should pick up on this in ALL their reporting. The Scams cannot say that the DNA clears THEM anymore, because it doesn't. The police don't use that to clear anyone anymore, with good reason. It hasn't matched anyone, and it may never match anyone. OUR side said this from day one, when Lacy tried to use it to clear the Ramseys only. They used it as a stick against us saying the Scams were no longer suspects in this case, and that is not true. The police also said they want to look at EVERYONE that was investigated in the past, leaving it as wide open as possible.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#15 Jul 9, 2016
This is from the BPD's spokesperson after the arrest of Oliva on child pornography charges:

"We feel like we ought to look at ALL people as being possible suspects who have been possible suspects before," said Huntley.
stoned luck aka luky9

Los Angeles, CA

#16 Jul 9, 2016
people cleared has got to.have been the best red herring yet.they got nothing.to say you've been cleared isn't saying anything.it's a dumb stunt perpetuated on lots of people.No doubt to t h e glee of the lab doing the so called test. comparison.Phil Nye the science guy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hurricane Harvey vs. Jonbenet 4 hr Let It Snow 23
Has anyone interviewed the kids? 4 hr Rainbow334 25
News The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey: Get to Know the M... (Mar '17) 4 hr Let It Snow 9
Jon Benet and Santa Claus (Dec '16) 4 hr Let It Snow 24
The secret Santa visit was also part of the set up (Aug '08) 4 hr Let It Snow 271
Munchausen-by-proxy Syndrome (Jan '14) 6 hr KCinNYC 7
Q 4 KC in NY 6 hr KCinNYC 2
More from around the web