Was the DNA human?????
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1 Jul 29, 2012
Because the DNA is miniscule, incomplete, and degraded it's possible THEY DID NOT VERIFY IT WAS HUMAN DNA. DNA of living animals is very similar and that’s not comparing humans to apes but to pigs and cattle and DNA we come in contact with on a daily basis through food.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2098...

”In other words, you wouldn't know that a sample was from an elephant unless you suspected you were looking for an elephant and had the right DNA test.

Why does forensic science allow what most would consider an inaccuracy in DNA testing? Quite simply, because it's rare that a non-human primate--say, a silverback lowland gorilla-- is suspected of committing a crime.”

There is no information Bode Technology does anything but human testing. They’re a commercial lab, a for profit business and not equipped to answer DNA questions of a more scientific nature.

This may sound far fetched to some of you but for foreign mystery DNA to be related to the death and a killer it has to be verified as human and chances are it was only assumed and never tested. Where are the lab reports this testing was done? Jonbenet had contact with various animal products that day – corned beef, bacon, crab, and turkey. DNA of these animals on her fingers from eating could transfer to the clothing, especially the waistband and underwear while toileting. That is the crux of touch DNA.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#2 Jul 29, 2012
While none of us of course know anything for sure, I am quite confident that in the DNA labs, they can automatically tell that DNA is either human or animal.

DNA might be closer for a gorilla, etc., but a place like BODE should automatically know the DNA differences in markers between human and animal

Just my opinion

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#3 Jul 29, 2012
No, they can't tell automatically, that's what I'm trying to say.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#4 Jul 29, 2012
This DNA isn't like any semen, blood, or siliva commonly found and collected at crime scenes.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#5 Jul 29, 2012
Chicken number one provided egg for the pancake batter, cow number one the milk. Cow number 2 provided the dna for the corned beef. Pig number one provided the bacon. From dinner there was DNA from crab, turkey, and little hotdogs, a mixture of pork and chicken or perhaps another cow.

The DNA from any of these animals can't be excluded as a sorce for any DNA found on Jonbenet's hands, body, and or clothing.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#6 Jul 29, 2012
DNA testing laboratories CAN tell the difference between animal and human DNA:

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/forensics.html

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#7 Jul 29, 2012
They can but that's only if they run a that test. I'm just asking to verify it was checked against other species. There is no information that touch DNA is so testable.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#8 Jul 29, 2012
Bode's tests can tell the difference between human and animal DNA, even if it's mixed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12613254

Development, characterization, and validation of a sensitive primate-specific quantification assay for forensic analysis.
Fox JC, Cave CA, Schumm JW.
SourceBode Technology Group, Springfield, VA, USA.

Abstract
Accurate human-specific DNA quantification is essential for forensic casework analysis. In this work, we describe a microplate-based quantification assay that utilizes the PCR amplification of human-specific TH01 primers. This method enables the reliable quantification of human DNA samples from 0.2 to 40 ng, EVEN IN MIXTURES WITH NONHUMAN DNA. Analysis of samples can be semi-automated using 96-well microplates and a spreadsheet-based concentration calculator for high-throughput demands. We have used this quantification method with more than 15,000 forensic samples.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#9 Jul 29, 2012
Good question and good point. I will ask my daughter the next time I talk with her and let you know.
CC

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#10 Jul 29, 2012
Bakatwori wrote:
Good question and good point. I will ask my daughter the next time I talk with her and let you know.
CC
Ask her to tell you the difference between one and two while she is at it.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#11 Jul 29, 2012
BowelMovement wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask her to tell you the difference between one and two while she is at it.
OK, but for your information, if you put one finger up, that is one, and if you put two up, that is two if that isn't too complicating for you.
CC

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#12 Jul 30, 2012
candy wrote:
Bode's tests can tell the difference between human and animal DNA, even if it's mixed:
The question is if it's incomplete and degraded.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#13 Jul 30, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
Good question and good point. I will ask my daughter the next time I talk with her and let you know.
CC
Thank-you

Since: Sep 11

South Africa

#14 Jul 30, 2012
moonjack wrote:
Because the DNA is miniscule, incomplete, and degraded it's possible THEY DID NOT VERIFY IT WAS HUMAN DNA. DNA of living animals is very similar and that’s not comparing humans to apes but to pigs and cattle and DNA we come in contact with on a daily basis through food.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2098...
”In other words, you wouldn't know that a sample was from an elephant unless you suspected you were looking for an elephant and had the right DNA test.
Why does forensic science allow what most would consider an inaccuracy in DNA testing? Quite simply, because it's rare that a non-human primate--say, a silverback lowland gorilla-- is suspected of committing a crime.”
There is no information Bode Technology does anything but human testing. They’re a commercial lab, a for profit business and not equipped to answer DNA questions of a more scientific nature.
This may sound far fetched to some of you but for foreign mystery DNA to be related to the death and a killer it has to be verified as human and chances are it was only assumed and never tested. Where are the lab reports this testing was done? Jonbenet had contact with various animal products that day – corned beef, bacon, crab, and turkey. DNA of these animals on her fingers from eating could transfer to the clothing, especially the waistband and underwear while toileting. That is the crux of touch DNA.
How can you say the DNA was "miniscule, degraded and incomplete" when we all know that the DNA profiles extracted from her panties and longjohns contained the sufficient number of markers necessary to meet the stringent standards as set out by Codis?

Do you honestly believe the FBI would be so stupid as to accept the DNA from the flesh of an animal into its database? And how would this DNA survive being refrigerated, cooked and probably also frozen at some point and still be of sufficient quality for submission into Codis?

I can't believe you posted such nonsense.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#15 Jul 30, 2012
There is no complete profile. It was degraded and incomplete. It is possible it is not human DNA.
DNA can survive cremation and can survive cooking.

Sorry Lynette, it's not nonsense, just a question needing an expert answer for which you are not qualified. BUT we are waiting for your funny stories on another thread about your kids leaving little turds like Jonbenet's feces on the candy box.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#16 Jul 30, 2012
The DNA in CODIS is all talk, it's for appearances only.

It can never be used to convict anyone. It can have an initial hit but the follow-up certified confirmation comparing the full profiles can never occur.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#17 Jul 30, 2012
Lynette,
The DNA could not immediately go into CODIS because it was a partial profile of 9 markers, one of which was weak. When technology advanced, it was tested again and they were able to pull the 10th marker needed to enter it into that database. A full profile is 13 markers.

The nonsense is you thinking 10 markers is a complete profile.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> How can you say the DNA was "miniscule, degraded and incomplete" when we all know that the DNA profiles extracted from her panties and longjohns contained the sufficient number of markers necessary to meet the stringent standards as set out by Codis?

I can't believe you posted such nonsense.

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#18 Jul 30, 2012
moonjack wrote:
There is no complete profile. It was degraded and incomplete. It is possible it is not human DNA.
DNA can survive cremation and can survive cooking.
Sorry Lynette, it's not nonsense, just a question needing an expert answer for which you are not qualified. BUT we are waiting for your funny stories on another thread about your kids leaving little turds like Jonbenet's feces on the candy box.
I didn't say there was a complete profile. The panty DNA yielded 10 markers and the TDNA from the longjohns at least that number, and was therefore "complete" enough for submission into Codis. I don't believe cooked DNA would meet the necessary criteria for Codis and I am positive the FBI will not accept animal DNA into its database, but hey, you never know, I may be wrong. I'm not a qualified expert, so why don't you contact Bode and ask them if they made sure the DNA didn't come from a cooked animal? Lol!

I could tell you at least one funny little story about one of my kids and little turds, but are you sure you REALLY want to hear it?
How would you know I'm not spinning you a yarn like James Kolar did?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#19 Jul 30, 2012
Because Kolar didn't lie.

You and/or anyone else who thinks he did are in denial of the facts of this case.
Lynette 22 wrote:
How would you know I'm not spinning you a yarn like James Kolar did?

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#20 Jul 30, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
Lynette,
The DNA could not immediately go into CODIS because it was a partial profile of 9 markers, one of which was weak. When technology advanced, it was tested again and they were able to pull the 10th marker needed to enter it into that database. A full profile is 13 markers.
The nonsense is you thinking 10 markers is a complete profile.
<quoted text>
Hello Seuss. Did you have a nice weekend?

I know all about how they got the tenth marker. The mistake you made was in not reading my post properly. I don't believe I said a word about a "complete" profile. That was moonjack putting words into my mouth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 4 min heatherk79 882
News 'Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery' rev... 20 min Stinky Cheese Man 176
Dean Ryan Investigation: The Letter 23 min Stinky Cheese Man 34
20/20 Interview 2 hr Non-state Actor 135
Long Underwear in Bathroom (Mar '10) 2 hr Tex- 138
Burke and his love of the basement/train room (Oct '16) 2 hr Tex- 19
Lou Smit wants details about Christmas bikes. (Nov '16) 2 hr Non-state Actor 40
Are you watching closely? 3 hr heatherk79 232
More from around the web