DNA and Krane

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of382
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

I see that the Indictment thread as vanished. I had a quick scan through it before it disappeared and skimmed over a post by KoldKase attacking what I had written regarding Krane and the DNA. I had planned to come back later in the day to read it more thoroughly so that I could respond. Now, that thread is gone. However, I do remember a bit of KK’s “attack” and will try to respond to it as best as I can and as based on memory.

I do have a copy of my post as I write everything in Word and copy/paste to post, so if KK wishes I can repost the original comments that she challenged me on.

Anyway...

My position on the DNA is 1) it has exculpatory value for EVERYONE excluded as a possible donor, and 2) it represents a person who must be identified and investigated.

On the Saliva
I am not stating that the panty DNA is saliva. I am merely restating what has been reported in the media: it PROBABLY is saliva. Probably means “more likely than not.”

A recent example from the media:[Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg] Laberge indicated that the [panty DNA sample] had flashed the color of blue during CBI's initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva... Kolar; p. 301

CODIS and the panty DNA
I wrote that,“This sample was tested in the courts before being admitted into the CODIS databanks.” I was WRONG. I had this confused with the court decision that allowed investigators to test the blood spot using the at-the-time-new “technology” developed by the FBI and used by CODIS. It was this testing that resulted in the sample later admitted to CODIS.

Regardless, the sample is in CODIS and it is there because it met CODIS standards:... at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission... <1>

The FACT that this sample met CODIS standards DISPROVES Krane’s opinion on this DNA sample. Krane knows his stuff, he is the real deal; but he doesn’t know the DNA evidence in the jbr case.

And, I think we (me and KK) are in total agreement on the issue of chimerism – it’s a nonfactor.

Anything else?

<1> http://tinyurl.com/ckvencj
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Hi AK,
Again, the DNA allegedly found was a very minute quantity,and the source cannot be determined to be saliva, blood, skin tissue, or any other organic cells.

Again, IF there was an unknown DNA found, it is worthless, because it only proves that the DNA got in contact with whatever it was found on, sometime in history. It DOES NOT prove ANYTHING else.

We do not know if the killer touched the items where the DNA was allegedly found, because the victim was found fully dressed. NOW, we DO KNOW that the killer touched the garrote, so if any DNA was found on it, that would be substantial, but NOT conclusive.

DNA is NOT a magical thing. It doesn't prove anything at all as to when, where, or how it was applied.

Please try to stick with the FACTS in this case.
BAK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Anti-K wrote:
I see that the Indictment thread as vanished.

I had a quick scan through it before it disappeared and skimmed over a post by KoldKase attacking what I had written regarding Krane and the DNA.

I do remember a bit of KK’s “attack”...

...so if KK wishes I can repost the original comments that she challenged me on.

Anything else?

...
AK
Anything else? Yes. Why do you perceive a discussion as an attack? Granted, you finally coughed up the word "challenged" so it seems you do know the truth too, but you just had to say "attack" a couple of times first? Why?

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

AK,

I don't believe you are the 'know all be all' on DNA either AK, and I disagree with most of your DNA posts, but discussion should be allowed to happen on both side without claims of attack IMO. And as for people disagreeing with you, most everyone on this board disagrees with you, nothing new there. Certainly no reason to have a good thread removed, however it probably shouldn't have been on the Indictment thread anyhow, so probably good you started another one. Hope someone gets the indictment stuff back up too.
Anti-K wrote:
Krane knows his stuff, he is the real deal; but he doesn’t know the DNA evidence in the jbr case.

AK

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

The foreign DNA associated with the death of Jonbenet is meaningless and does not exonerate her family’s responsibility for the issues that killed her. John and Patsy Ramsey were indicted by a Grand Jury on the real evidence and the incredible dysfunction of their family. The most important thing to understand about the family - THESE CHILDREN DIDN’T USE THE TOILET. Care for the mentally ill has changed but 100 years ago the kids would have been diagnosed as ‘retarded’ and been locked up for a behavior that abnormal. Most children who exhibit this bizarre behavior do it as a cry for help for something they can’t comprehend or discuss; sexual molestation. It was revealed in Jonbenet’s autopsy she was the victim of repeat molestation throughout her life with chronic changes to her vagina. The Grand Jury understood this fact. The Ramseys glossed over it with no attempt to uncover who was responsible, as though they already knew.

There were 6 sperate samples from limited testing but if the entire garments were totally tested ($$$$$$$) many more would appear. All degraded and incomplete and not dated to her death. Only one of those 6 was worthy for CODIS and that was only after playing with in the lab. CODIS is a screening tool and the second more important verification process by a certified lab where the complete DNA sample is compared to the complete sample can never occur. It’s just for show that it is in CODIS and should they rewrite the rules would eliminate such useless entries.

If the clothing of Jessica Lundsford, Polly Klaas, and Danielle VanDam were tested, multiple specks of foreign, degraded, incomplete, touch DNA would appear. It would not make their convicted murderers innocent. The ability to find touch DNA has eclipsed the ability to understand it’s meaning. There are no standards yet - like acceptable insect particles in food. DNA specks are indigenous to common materials and accessories in the society of human life. Drops of Blood or semen and are important trails to follow in cases of murder but that's not what we have with the case of Jonbenet, the most vulnerable member of a mentally unbalanced family.

***** It’s remote but possible CODIS could unravel the tragedy of Jonbenet’s death but only if samples from John, Burke and JAR are included. One or more molested Jonbenet and may have or will sexually assault and kill again.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Good morning all,

I don't think any of us here are a better authority on DNA than the experts i.e. Henry Lee

Henry Lee has stated on record that this is NOT a DNA case. I agree for so many reasons way more than the scientific aspect

If this is to become a DNA case, then the steps that need to be taken are the release of the FULL report and then take it from there, trying to discern all the DNA that is there (BTW, Lee has seen the FULL report so he surely has a reason for stating that it is NOT a DNA case)

So far, we have Lee saying this is not a DNA case and we have NOBODY else in a scientific capacity or a DNA authority to say that the DNA is the smoking gun for this murder. NOT ONE.

Not one scientist/physician is willing to state that the DNA will lead to the murderer; only statements about how nice it would be to find a match for informative purposes.

The DNA on its own, with no other information in THIS case does not rule anyone in or out.

DNA is a wonderful tool in the PROPER perspective for the RIGHT cases. This isn't one of them
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Anti-K wrote:
I see that the Indictment thread as vanished. I had a quick scan through it before it disappeared and skimmed over a post by KoldKase attacking what I had written regarding Krane and the DNA. I had planned to come back later in the day to read it more thoroughly so that I could respond. Now, that thread is gone. However, I do remember a bit of KK’s “attack” and will try to respond to it as best as I can and as based on memory.
I do have a copy of my post as I write everything in Word and copy/paste to post, so if KK wishes I can repost the original comments that she challenged me on.
Anyway...
My position on the DNA is 1) it has exculpatory value for EVERYONE excluded as a possible donor, and 2) it represents a person who must be identified and investigated.
On the Saliva
I am not stating that the panty DNA is saliva. I am merely restating what has been reported in the media: it PROBABLY is saliva. Probably means “more likely than not.”
A recent example from the media:[Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg] Laberge indicated that the [panty DNA sample] had flashed the color of blue during CBI's initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva... Kolar; p. 301
CODIS and the panty DNA
I wrote that,“This sample was tested in the courts before being admitted into the CODIS databanks.” I was WRONG. I had this confused with the court decision that allowed investigators to test the blood spot using the at-the-time-new “technology” developed by the FBI and used by CODIS. It was this testing that resulted in the sample later admitted to CODIS.
Regardless, the sample is in CODIS and it is there because it met CODIS standards:... at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission... <1>
The FACT that this sample met CODIS standards DISPROVES Krane’s opinion on this DNA sample. Krane knows his stuff, he is the real deal; but he doesn’t know the DNA evidence in the jbr case.
And, I think we (me and KK) are in total agreement on the issue of chimerism – it’s a nonfactor.
Anything else?
<1> http://tinyurl.com/ckvencj
...
AK
There was an INDICTMENT thread because the Ramseys were INDICTED. Not because as you claimed VEHEMENTLY and ARDENTLY that the Grand Jury MERELY voted to indict. And while you haven't acknowledged your mistake regarding the Grand Jury at least in your latest post you are blaming your mistakes on confusion and not misremembering.

Since: Sep 11

Brakpan, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

DrSeussMd wrote:
AK,
I don't believe you are the 'know all be all' on DNA either AK, and I disagree with most of your DNA posts, but discussion should be allowed to happen on both side without claims of attack IMO. And as for people disagreeing with you, most everyone on this board disagrees with you, nothing new there. Certainly no reason to have a good thread removed, however it probably shouldn't have been on the Indictment thread anyhow, so probably good you started another one. Hope someone gets the indictment stuff back up too.
AK has NEVER claimed to be the "know all be all" on DNA. However, it's obvious by his posts that he knows what he's talking about. He's one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent, well-mannered and respectful posters we have on this forum and it would do the rest of you the world of good to take a few lessons from him. KK's post was rude and abrasive and you know it, yet you pick on AK.

Why do you RDI always have to have someone to bully?

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

If they go scraping around on any murder victim's clothing, they're going to find foreign DNA which does not belong to the perpetrator or known acquaintances. A woman steps into a subway train. There's no sitting room so she grabs hold of the bar while standing. She has foreign DNA on her hands. She brushes some lint off her blouse. She now has unknown DNA on her blouse.

Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence. Now, if DNA is found in semen or blood, that's a different matter.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Did I not say and I quote:

"but discussion should be allowed to happen on both side without claims of attack"

Huh Lynette? You quoted me saying that, did you actually read what you quoted?

No one is bullying AK. They are disagreeing with him/her. Just like I am disagreeing with you right now. AK really DOES stay out of the banter "most" of the time. That does not make up for the condescending comments at other times though, just sayin'. I have gotten along with AK just fine, so butt out, ok? TIA
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> AK has NEVER claimed to be the "know all be all" on DNA. However, it's obvious by his posts that he knows what he's talking about. He's one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent, well-mannered and respectful posters we have on this forum and it would do the rest of you the world of good to take a few lessons from him. KK's post was rude and abrasive and you know it, yet you pick on AK.
Why do you RDI always have to have someone to bully?

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Exactly learnin. It doesn't get more easily understood than that.
learnin wrote:
Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

learnin wrote:
If they go scraping around on any murder victim's clothing, they're going to find foreign DNA which does not belong to the perpetrator or known acquaintances. A woman steps into a subway train. There's no sitting room so she grabs hold of the bar while standing. She has foreign DNA on her hands. She brushes some lint off her blouse. She now has unknown DNA on her blouse.
Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence. Now, if DNA is found in semen or blood, that's a different matter.
This LOGIC has been known and discussed for many years regarding this DNA and it's possible sources and what should be straightforward common sense, especially without the details of the report, but it suits many to milk the extreme possibilities of the DNA instead of the reality of its use in THIS case.

Without the entire information about the DNA and all the DNA, the discussion is nothing more than speculation on all sides and even then, the logical conclusion is that it is NOT a DNA case.
Steve Eller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
This LOGIC has been known and discussed for many years regarding this DNA and it's possible sources and what should be straightforward common sense, especially without the details of the report, but it suits many to milk the extreme possibilities of the DNA instead of the reality of its use in THIS case.
Without the entire information about the DNA and all the DNA, the discussion is nothing more than speculation on all sides and even then, the logical conclusion is that it is NOT a DNA case.
I think Dr. Krane and Dr. Lee are 'slightly' more qualified to put the DNA evidence into perspective than AK. Time and time again he has willfully "miserembered" (misrepresented) information in this case. There is nothing in the DNA evidence that points to any particular scenario. It is being used as a tool by the IDI proponents as a face saving method to avoid the obvious which is that an intruder did not enter the house that night.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Of course they are more qualified, no questions about that. Dr Lee said from the start that this was not a DNA case too, and it looks like he was spot on.

In the interest of splitting the DNA and Indictment, I just bumped another thread to discuss the indictment part of this, and maybe the DNA can remain here
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Dr. Krane and Dr. Lee are 'slightly' more qualified to put the DNA evidence into perspective than AK. Time and time again he has willfully "miserembered" (misrepresented) information in this case. There is nothing in the DNA evidence that points to any particular scenario. It is being used as a tool by the IDI proponents as a face saving method to avoid the obvious which is that an intruder did not enter the house that night.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bakatari wrote:
Hi AK,
Again, the DNA allegedly found was a very minute quantity,and the source cannot be determined to be saliva, blood, skin tissue, or any other organic cells.
Again, IF there was an unknown DNA found, it is worthless, because it only proves that the DNA got in contact with whatever it was found on, sometime in history. It DOES NOT prove ANYTHING else.
We do not know if the killer touched the items where the DNA was allegedly found, because the victim was found fully dressed. NOW, we DO KNOW that the killer touched the garrote, so if any DNA was found on it, that would be substantial, but NOT conclusive.
DNA is NOT a magical thing. It doesn't prove anything at all as to when, where, or how it was applied.
Please try to stick with the FACTS in this case.
BAK
DNA in and of itself proves nothing, but this DNA does not exist in a vacuum. It’s all about the nature of the crime and the locations where the DNA was found.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything else? Yes. Why do you perceive a discussion as an attack? Granted, you finally coughed up the word "challenged" so it seems you do know the truth too, but you just had to say "attack" a couple of times first? Why?
Well, I did place attack within quotation marks in hopes that it would take some of the bite out of the term and to show that is was not meant to be taken literally. I certainly didn’t mean for it to be taken offensively or intend it to be seen as something negative. On the other hand, I didn’t think KK was trying to engage me in a conversation, either. Who knows? Maybe KK will have something to say about this? If she feels that I’ve wronged her in some way, then I will be sure to apologize.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DrSeussMd wrote:
AK,
I don't believe you are the 'know all be all' on DNA either AK, and I disagree with most of your DNA posts, but discussion should be allowed to happen on both side without claims of attack IMO. And as for people disagreeing with you, most everyone on this board disagrees with you, nothing new there. Certainly no reason to have a good thread removed, however it probably shouldn't have been on the Indictment thread anyhow, so probably good you started another one. Hope someone gets the indictment stuff back up too.
<quoted text>
I don’t think that I’m the “know all be all” of DNA, either! And, if I was bothered by people disagreeing with me then topix is one of the last places I would post!
...

AK

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

DrSeussMd wrote:
Did I not say and I quote:
"but discussion should be allowed to happen on both side without claims of attack"
Huh Lynette? You quoted me saying that, did you actually read what you quoted?
No one is bullying AK. They are disagreeing with him/her. Just like I am disagreeing with you right now. AK really DOES stay out of the banter "most" of the time. That does not make up for the condescending comments at other times though, just sayin'. I have gotten along with AK just fine, so butt out, ok? TIA
<quoted text>
Maybe RDI shouldn't bother to respond to IDI at all? Every time we do, they cry. Let them regurgitate their usual garbage, step over their posts, and let's have a nice day! LOL bunch of whiners knowingly spewing lies just to get a response so they can disrupt the discussion. They hate the truth of this case, hate the FACT that the gj returned a true bill, so look what they do. waaaah waaaah waaah.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Capricorn wrote:
Good morning all,
I don't think any of us here are a better authority on DNA than the experts i.e. Henry Lee
Henry Lee has stated on record that this is NOT a DNA case. I agree for so many reasons way more than the scientific aspect
If this is to become a DNA case, then the steps that need to be taken are the release of the FULL report and then take it from there, trying to discern all the DNA that is there (BTW, Lee has seen the FULL report so he surely has a reason for stating that it is NOT a DNA case)
So far, we have Lee saying this is not a DNA case and we have NOBODY else in a scientific capacity or a DNA authority to say that the DNA is the smoking gun for this murder. NOT ONE.
Not one scientist/physician is willing to state that the DNA will lead to the murderer; only statements about how nice it would be to find a match for informative purposes.
The DNA on its own, with no other information in THIS case does not rule anyone in or out.
DNA is a wonderful tool in the PROPER perspective for the RIGHT cases. This isn't one of them
I don’t think that Lee is a DNA expert; he’s more of a “crime scene reconstruction” expert and iirc his specialty is in blood spatter. Lee is a “celebrity expert” and has been heavily criticised by many in the criminal and scientific community. For example, see Chapter 16, p. 253 in the book.“Forensics Under Fire; Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice.”

That aside, I agree that this is not a DNA case. At least, as far as a case against the Ramseys is concerned. As for a case against the DNA donor? Who knows? We can’t say until this person is identified and investigated.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

learnin wrote:
If they go scraping around on any murder victim's clothing, they're going to find foreign DNA which does not belong to the perpetrator or known acquaintances. A woman steps into a subway train. There's no sitting room so she grabs hold of the bar while standing. She has foreign DNA on her hands. She brushes some lint off her blouse. She now has unknown DNA on her blouse.
Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence. Now, if DNA is found in semen or blood, that's a different matter.
Location, location, location, it’s all about location. The DNA means something, that’s why it’s in the CODIS databank, and that’s why they run it though the databank, and that’s why BPD and the DA’s office has spent so much money, time, etc trying to get usable results from analysis of it and so much money, time, etc trying to source it.
...

AK

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of382
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

16 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 1 hr Detective Xyitech 161
Snow Prints? 1 hr Detective Xyitech 21
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet 3 hr biz 31
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... Mon candy 10
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) Mon candy 24
Why patsy didn't wake up Burke Sun Just Wondering 3
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... Jul 19 Steve Eller 184
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••