DNA and Krane

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#22 Oct 29, 2013
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
Hi Capricorn,
Actually, you do not have to be a DNA expert to realize that the JBR case is NOT a DNA case. All you need to do, is realize what the DNA actually and factually proves.

The DNA, regardless of where it was found, and how much of it was found makes no difference especially, if we cannot positively ID the source. "Most likely", "probably" and "possibly" does not mean "definitively", We do not know whether the DNA allegedly found is blood, saliva, skin tissue, or some other organic cell.

Therefore, without knowing the source, what does the DNA prove? Ot ONLY proves that the DNA, at sometime in history contacted the material it was found on/in.

IF the DNA was found on the garrote, that MIGHT be a different story, but even then, if matched, it would not be enough to attain a conviction.

To bank one's opinion on DNA in the JBR case is quite frivolous, when logically, it proves nothing connected with the case.
BAK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#23 Oct 29, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<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
Hi Anti K,
You do not have to be "in the know" as far as being an expert in the JBR case. All you have to know, is what the DNA definitively proves.
BAK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#24 Oct 29, 2013
It seems your fan club is more upset about it than you or I. Like I said, we get along fairly well, and always have, whether we agree or disagree.
Anti-K wrote:
<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

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#25 Oct 29, 2013
AND, more importantly than just that, exactly what learnin said which was:

"Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence. "
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#26 Oct 29, 2013
It is never going to match anyone, because it is most likely an artifact and/or transfer, and they aren't doing anything except sticking it in the database every week. Look at how they have let a little girl down while they have been chasing their tails!
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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

Since: May 11

AOL

#27 Oct 29, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
AND, more importantly than just that, exactly what learnin said which was:
"Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence. "
<quoted text>
The DNA results were already in when the gj was seated and they INDICTED the Ramseys..so it seems the eeny meeny speck of foreign DNA didn't impress. Now, if they could just tell us whose DNA is on the cord around JB's neck, we might have a BINGO! Recall, neither Ramsey ever saw that cord in their life, and neither touched it in front of Linda Arndt and company..there's no reason/explanation for their DNA to be on it and that is the only piece of evidence we really need to know about. Their house, their DNA..but not the cord.
Steve Eller

United States

#28 Oct 29, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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
TYPICAL AK DISTORTION

Dr. Henry Lee is not a "blood splatter expert" nor is he a "crime reconstruction expert", Dr. Lee has testified at numerous "celebrity" trials because he is one of the world's foremost forensic scientists who also has a PhD in biochemistry. Anyone who is at the forefront of his or her field is likely to have some detractors. You took a page in a book and ran back to this forum breathlessly and eagerly ready to misrepresent the truth. Here are some of Dr. Lee's credentials. Dr. Lee has assisted in over 7,000 major case investigations, has served as a forensics expert for 50 states and 30 countries. He has served as a consultant to over 600 law enforcement agencies and has testified over 1,000 times in both criminal and civil courts in the United States and abroad. Aside from the JonBenet Ramsey case, Dr. Lee has assisted in other investigations among which are the death of Chandra Levy, the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, and the reinvestigation of the Kennedy assasination. He is the author of 30 books and 400 publications and an editor of five scientific journals. Your tumid attempts at misrepresenting his qualifications accurately depict your level of desperation in attempting to retain some credibility in defending your beloved and despicable Ramseys.
The Truth Hurts

Detroit, MI

#29 Oct 29, 2013
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>
Kinda leaning towards the "Indictment" thread being taken down due to the spamming of a certain poster who has recently come back to haunt this forum. That's my take on it anyway.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#30 Oct 29, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinda leaning towards the "Indictment" thread being taken down due to the spamming of a certain poster who has recently come back to haunt this forum. That's my take on it anyway.
That and the moron that falls for it every time by posting to it.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#32 Oct 29, 2013
Speaking of it.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#33 Oct 30, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
Actually, you do not have to be a DNA expert to realize that the JBR case is NOT a DNA case. All you need to do, is realize what the DNA actually and factually proves.
The DNA, regardless of where it was found, and how much of it was found makes no difference especially, if we cannot positively ID the source. "Most likely", "probably" and "possibly" does not mean "definitively", We do not know whether the DNA allegedly found is blood, saliva, skin tissue, or some other organic cell.
Therefore, without knowing the source, what does the DNA prove? Ot ONLY proves that the DNA, at sometime in history contacted the material it was found on/in.
IF the DNA was found on the garrote, that MIGHT be a different story, but even then, if matched, it would not be enough to attain a conviction.
To bank one's opinion on DNA in the JBR case is quite frivolous, when logically, it proves nothing connected with the case.
BAK
It is absurd to claim that the DNA is meaningless (makes no difference) because the source has not been identified. This completely ignores the fact that attempts to find an innocent source have to-date all failed! Also, the panty DNA sample from this case is just one out of over five hundred thousand unidentified forensic samples in the CODIS databank – 8,850 of them from Colorado. <1>

The DNA’s “connection” to the case is established by 1) nature of crime and 2) location found.

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

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#34 Oct 30, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
AND, more importantly than just that, exactly what learnin said which was:
"Such DNA means nothing unless it can be matched to a person that is incriminated by other evidence. "
<quoted text>
I must have missed this comment by Learnin. This isn’t that far away from what I’ve been saying, but the only way to find that “other evidence” is to first source the DNA and then investigate that person identified. Who knows what might be found?
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#35 Oct 30, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
It is never going to match anyone, because it is most likely an artifact and/or transfer, and they aren't doing anything except sticking it in the database every week. Look at how they have let a little girl down while they have been chasing their tails!
<quoted text>
It IS transfer. What else could it be? Transferred by who, is the question. Transferred by someone who needs to be investigated.

Could there be an innocent source? Maybe, but it becomes increasingly unlikely every time one is eliminated. BPD and the DA’s office have tried to source the DNA to persons connected to the investigation, the family and possible sources at the autopsy – innocent sources! So far, none have been found.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#36 Oct 30, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA results were already in when the gj was seated and they INDICTED the Ramseys..so it seems the eeny meeny speck of foreign DNA didn't impress. Now, if they could just tell us whose DNA is on the cord around JB's neck, we might have a BINGO! Recall, neither Ramsey ever saw that cord in their life, and neither touched it in front of Linda Arndt and company..there's no reason/explanation for their DNA to be on it and that is the only piece of evidence we really need to know about. Their house, their DNA..but not the cord.
The jury disbanded in 1999.

The court case that allowed testing of the panty blood spots was settled in 2001.

The DNA sample from the second blood spot was submitted in 2003 and the matching leggings DNA wasn’t discovered until 2008. So, no, the grand jury was not aware of the DNA. Who knows if it would have made any difference to them?

According to Kolar (p. 417) there was an unidentified partial profile (7 markers) found on the garrote and an unidentified partial profile (6 markers) found on the wrist ligatures.
...

AK

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#37 Oct 30, 2013
The spammer who is running around libeling some preacher all over the place, including but not limited to topix JB forum threads, is why I thought the thread got taken out.

But now I find it's rude ol' me? lol

In the meantime, I see IDI are now into pure FICTION: they think the Wolf lawsuit proved anything related to the DNA? Or anything else about this case?

It was a civil suit WHICH NEVER WENT TO TRIAL BUT WAS DISMISSED in a pre-trial motion. It "settled" nothing about the criminal case nor the DNA evidence.

Civil and criminal law are two different areas of law in this country. There was no trial in the Wolf CIVIL suit. There wasn't even a DNA expert who was questioned under oath in a deposition of which I am aware. There was no jury and no verdict.

Really, even I am shocked they're trying to pass this off. It's a new low for IDI case discussion.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#38 Oct 30, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
It is absurd to claim that the DNA is meaningless (makes no difference) because the source has not been identified. This completely ignores the fact that attempts to find an innocent source have to-date all failed! Also, the panty DNA sample from this case is just one out of over five hundred thousand unidentified forensic samples in the CODIS databank – 8,850 of them from Colorado. <1>
The DNA’s “connection” to the case is established by 1) nature of crime and 2) location found.
<1> http://tinyurl.com/aggnury
...
AK
Hi AK,
The DNA IS meaningless. With the DNA allegedly found, NOTHING can be proven. It doesn't prove an intruder, and it cannot prove that it belongs to someone who was in the house at the time of the crime. So, it is MEANINGLESS.

Tell me, what do you think the DNA proves?

Bakatari.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#39 Oct 30, 2013
The partial DNA profile Kolar said was identified on the ligature was a separate, individual profile not matched to the other FIVE partial profiles. The partial profile found on the wrist ligature was also not matched to any of the other five partial DNA profiles, including the ligature partial profile.

So that's 2 intruders right there?

I asked Kolar specifically, and it was explained in great detail that the six separate DNA profiles he referred to were six individual, separate people, except for one partial fingernail profile which JB could not be excluded from as donor. It was too small to say she was the donor.

Cynic at FFJ, from Kolar's book:

~~~~~~~~~~

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles – five male profiles and one female profile.

DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.

In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile.(JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)

The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.

Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote”– male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to BR and PR.)

~~~~~~~~~~

These are all partial profiles from nano-particles on clothing MANY people have handled; not to mention also DNA from Patsy and Burke on the nightgown; so we're up to 5 to 6 intruders? Really? Were Patsy and Burke part of that foreign faction?

As to three labs which tested partial samples and came up with the same profiles over 12 years,

I believe it's been established through several professional sources that the medical examiner could have contaminated the clothing items as he examined the blood spots on the panties closely, including holding them against the child's genitals to see if it lined up with the blood on her body. It didn't. THAT'S how he determined the body had been cleaned.

We actually have a photo of a gloved hand holding the fingers of JonBenet's hand at autopsy, palm up for the "heart" marking. If that gloved hand had already handled the clothing on the child or later handled the clothing--transference both ways, from the fingernails and on the clothing.

There are many experts on the record saying the DNA is not evidence of an intruder present at the Ramsey home the night of the murder. Even Lacy said it could be artifact after she, Tracey, and Smit didn't get away with pinning this on Ms. Karr in 2006--and Garnett is now on the record, as well.

Garnett: "District attorneys are not priests; our job is not to forgive, and rarely to 'exonerate', and straying from this role can be very confusing to the public and can create false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence, subject to conflicting inferences, that has never been presented and tested in open court."

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#40 Oct 30, 2013
koldkase wrote:
The spammer who is running around libeling some preacher all over the place, including but not limited to topix JB forum threads, is why I thought the thread got taken out.

But now I find it's rude ol' me? lol

In the meantime, I see IDI are now into pure FICTION: they think the Wolf lawsuit proved anything related to the DNA? Or anything else about this case?

It was a civil suit WHICH NEVER WENT TO TRIAL BUT WAS DISMISSED in a pre-trial motion. It "settled" nothing about the criminal case nor the DNA evidence.

Civil and criminal law are two different areas of law in this country. There was no trial in the Wolf CIVIL suit. There wasn't even a DNA expert who was questioned under oath in a deposition of which I am aware. There was no jury and no verdict.

Really, even I am shocked they're trying to pass this off. It's a new low for IDI case discussion.
AK was referring to People vs. Schreck.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#41 Oct 30, 2013
koldkase wrote:
The spammer who is running around libeling some preacher all over the place, including but not limited to topix JB forum threads, is why I thought the thread got taken out.
But now I find it's rude ol' me? lol
In the meantime, I see IDI are now into pure FICTION: they think the Wolf lawsuit proved anything related to the DNA? Or anything else about this case?
It was a civil suit WHICH NEVER WENT TO TRIAL BUT WAS DISMISSED in a pre-trial motion. It "settled" nothing about the criminal case nor the DNA evidence.
Civil and criminal law are two different areas of law in this country. There was no trial in the Wolf CIVIL suit. There wasn't even a DNA expert who was questioned under oath in a deposition of which I am aware. There was no jury and no verdict.
Really, even I am shocked they're trying to pass this off. It's a new low for IDI case discussion.
I hope none of this was in reference to anything that I posted.

I’m confused, because I don’t remember reading any post here that 1) blamed the missing thread on you, 2) said or implied that you were rude and 3) made any mention of the wolf lawsuit.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#42 Oct 30, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
The DNA IS meaningless. With the DNA allegedly found, NOTHING can be proven. It doesn't prove an intruder, and it cannot prove that it belongs to someone who was in the house at the time of the crime. So, it is MEANINGLESS.
Tell me, what do you think the DNA proves?
Bakatari.
I’m not sure that I’ve ever said that the DNA proved anything. I’ve been saying that, 1) it has exculpatory value for EVERYONE excluded as a possible donor, and 2) it represents a person who must be identified and investigated.

How can you know that it is MEANINGLESS when all attempts to source it to an innocent donor have failed?
...

AK

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
I don't know how I missed this (Jan '17) 52 min JimmyWells 161
News The Team from "The Case of Jon Benet" (Feb '17) 2 hr heatherk79 10
Candy 2 hr heatherk79 17
THIS is Why Some Posts or Threads May "Disappear" 3 hr heatherk79 4
Hmmm 6 hr Tex- 14
Invisible Intruder 6 hr Tex- 4
JonBenet's dolls (Sep '06) 7 hr berrytea333 330
More from around the web