Comments
1 - 20 of 779 Comments Last updated Sep 22, 2013
First Prev
of 39
Next Last
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#1 Feb 18, 2011
Hi folks,
I just came across this site, which is simple, and very informative.

< http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.p... ;

If you happen to go to this site and look up "evidence Collection", it states:

"If DNA evidence is not initially identified at the crime scene or on the victim, it may not be collected, or it may become contaminated or degraded."

With this statement, the touch DNA was NOT initially identified at the crimescene or on the victim.

That makes the Touch DNA found more than 10 years later worthless, because it could have been contaminated, which it most likely was.

So, as I understand it, even IF the TDNA happened to match that of a sexual preditor, who denies having any part of the JB murder, the DNA evidence could not be used in court. This makes the case unsolveable by DNA evidence unless they have a profile from the crimescene.

CC
Old South

AOL

#2 Feb 18, 2011
Charlie Chan wrote:
Hi folks,
I just came across this site, which is simple, and very informative.
< http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.p... ;
If you happen to go to this site and look up "evidence Collection", it states:

"So, as I understand it, even IF the TDNA happened to match that of a sexual preditor, who denies having any part of the JB murder, the DNA evidence could not be used in court. This makes the case unsolveable by DNA evidence unless they have a profile from the crimescene.
CC
By the same token, "If the TDNA happened NOT to match that of a confessor who ADMITTED having a part in the JB murder, the TDNA evidence" is questionable and unreliable. IMO.

Thus, the TDNA cannot be used to eliminate Karr and his confession.
learnin

Pomona, KS

#3 Feb 18, 2011
Which is exactly why I believe Karr was let go because he messed up big time in the telling of his story....I don't believe he was let go on DNA evidence alone.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#4 Feb 18, 2011
Hey Charlie, tell that to Tim Masters, who was released from prison in 2008 in Colorado, after 10 years in prison, based on newly discovered "touch" DNA evidence. I believe the state then had to pay him 4 million on top of that...

This Touch DNA evidence IS significant in that it matches an unknown profile found on the garments of the dead victim. It also weeds out the John Mark Karr wanna be false confessors.

For learning, Lacy said EXACTLY why Karr was released in her letter to quash the arrest warrant against him:

"WHEREFORE, because NO EVIDENCE HAS DEVELOPED, other than his own repeated admissions, to place Mr. Karr at the scene of the crime, AND IN PARTICULAR, because his DNA does not match that of the victim's blood in her underwear, the People would not be able to establish that Mr. Karr committed this crime despite his repeated insistance that he did."
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#5 Feb 18, 2011
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
By the same token, "If the TDNA happened NOT to match that of a confessor who ADMITTED having a part in the JB murder, the TDNA evidence" is questionable and unreliable. IMO.
Thus, the TDNA cannot be used to eliminate Karr and his confession.
Hi OS,
I agree.
That makes the JMK fiasco even more frivolous.
However, with his confession and a DNA match, it MIGHT have held up in court, because I think it would be difficult to explain any contamination with HIS DNA.

The JMK arrest and dropped charges tells me they had absolutely nothing on him other than his false confession.
CC
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#6 Feb 18, 2011
candy wrote:
Hey Charlie, tell that to Tim Masters, who was released from prison in 2008 in Colorado, after 10 years in prison, based on newly discovered "touch" DNA evidence. I believe the state then had to pay him 4 million on top of that...
This Touch DNA evidence IS significant in that it matches an unknown profile found on the garments of the dead victim. It also weeds out the John Mark Karr wanna be false confessors.
For learning, Lacy said EXACTLY why Karr was released in her letter to quash the arrest warrant against him:
"WHEREFORE, because NO EVIDENCE HAS DEVELOPED, other than his own repeated admissions, to place Mr. Karr at the scene of the crime, AND IN PARTICULAR, because his DNA does not match that of the victim's blood in her underwear, the People would not be able to establish that Mr. Karr committed this crime despite his repeated insistance that he did."
Hi Candy,
going by what I read on the Master's case, the DNA used met the criteria to be used, because it was found ON the body of the victim. Had it been Touch DNA from her clothing, he would not have been exonerated, innocent or not, UNLESS the clothing was tested at the crime scene for the DNA.

In the JMK case, IF the DNA happened to match JMK, it would be very difficult to explain how anything got contaminated with HIS DNA, but it didn't match. So all they had was his false confession which would not hold up in any criminal court.
CC
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#7 Feb 19, 2011
learnin wrote:
Which is exactly why I believe Karr was let go because he messed up big time in the telling of his story....I don't believe he was let go on DNA evidence alone.
Karr claims that much of what is reported in the media was incorrect because of poor Thai translation.
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#8 Feb 19, 2011
Charlie Chan wrote:
Hi folks,
I just came across this site, which is simple, and very informative.
< http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.p... ;
If you happen to go to this site and look up "evidence Collection", it states:
"If DNA evidence is not initially identified at the crime scene or on the victim, it may not be collected, or it may become contaminated or degraded."
With this statement, the touch DNA was NOT initially identified at the crimescene or on the victim.
That makes the Touch DNA found more than 10 years later worthless, because it could have been contaminated, which it most likely was.
So, as I understand it, even IF the TDNA happened to match that of a sexual preditor, who denies having any part of the JB murder, the DNA evidence could not be used in court. This makes the case unsolveable by DNA evidence unless they have a profile from the crimescene.
CC
This is by far your most ludicrious attempt to discount the DNA. If the touch DNA didn't match any of the other DNA initially collected, then I could see your point. However when it matched the panty DNA and the partial fingernail DNA, it was a slam dunk. It is from the killer.
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#9 Feb 19, 2011
Charlie Chan wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi OS,
I agree.
That makes the JMK fiasco even more frivolous.
However, with his confession and a DNA match, it MIGHT have held up in court, because I think it would be difficult to explain any contamination with HIS DNA.
The JMK arrest and dropped charges tells me they had absolutely nothing on him other than his false confession.
CC
If JMK had matched the DNA evidence, they would have been justified in investigating him further. I still wonder about the reported graves under the house. No one ever looked into that. Even if he wasn't involved in the Ramsey case there were so many allegations made that were never looked into. LE never requested the case records from Sonoma, they never looked into allegations made by the former wives, the graves under the house. His bizarre behavior has gone uninvestigated for over a decade just because he was let go in the Ramsey case. What bothers me is this is how there are serial killers out there that get away with killing dozens of people before getting caught.
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#10 Feb 19, 2011
Charlie Chan wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Candy,
going by what I read on the Master's case, the DNA used met the criteria to be used, because it was found ON the body of the victim. Had it been Touch DNA from her clothing, he would not have been exonerated, innocent or not, UNLESS the clothing was tested at the crime scene for the DNA.
In the JMK case, IF the DNA happened to match JMK, it would be very difficult to explain how anything got contaminated with HIS DNA, but it didn't match. So all they had was his false confession which would not hold up in any criminal court.
CC
No one could have tested for touch DNA at the crime scene. It was not even known to exist in 1996, plus it is naked to the human eye. Plus the touch DNA was collected from SPECIFIC areas of the clothing, not all over it. It was gathered from the sides of the waist band of the pants when the perp would have grabbed the pants with force to pull them down. It is the "force" that releases skin cels that can be detected as touch DNA. Just merely laying one piece of clothing on top of the other does not create touch DNA.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#11 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
Just merely laying one piece of clothing on top of the other does not create touch DNA.
It does create contamination and transfer though.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#12 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
No one could have tested for touch DNA at the crime scene. It was not even known to exist in 1996, plus it is naked to the human eye. Plus the touch DNA was collected from SPECIFIC areas of the clothing, not all over it. It was gathered from the sides of the waist band of the pants when the perp would have grabbed the pants with force to pull them down. It is the "force" that releases skin cels that can be detected as touch DNA. Just merely laying one piece of clothing on top of the other does not create touch DNA.
There is no evidence of "force". Where do you get this from? The items easily could be contaminated after years of sitting in an evidence room and we don't know if the evidence handlers were tested either from day one

Oh, and biz, ALL DNA is naked to the human eye
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#13 Feb 19, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence of "force". Where do you get this from? The items easily could be contaminated after years of sitting in an evidence room and we don't know if the evidence handlers were tested either from day one
Oh, and biz, ALL DNA is naked to the human eye
Here is a link which explains that touch DNA is obtained when FORCE is use.
http://www.dnaforensics.com/TouchDNA.aspx
All DNA may be naked to the human eye. However components that are normally used to establish DNA, such as blood, saliva, semen etc are visible to the human eye. Touch DNA, a new technology which was not available in 1996 has no components which are visible to the human eye. You knew what I meant.
Biz

Pinellas Park, FL

#14 Feb 19, 2011
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
It does create contamination and transfer though.
The DNA obtained from the thermal underwear was not cross contamination. It was touch DNA which is obtainable from skin cels deposited after force. refer to my earlier link

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#15 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a link which explains that touch DNA is obtained when FORCE is use.
http://www.dnaforensics.com/TouchDNA.aspx
All DNA may be naked to the human eye. However components that are normally used to establish DNA, such as blood, saliva, semen etc are visible to the human eye. Touch DNA, a new technology which was not available in 1996 has no components which are visible to the human eye. You knew what I meant.
Touch DNA "can" be obtained through use of force, but that doesn't mean that force was used in this case. Big difference

You need to stop applying everything that is written to this case when you just don't know the details. Just because things "can" be done certain ways, doesn't mean that they were done that way
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#16 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
This is by far your most ludicrious attempt to discount the DNA. If the touch DNA didn't match any of the other DNA initially collected, then I could see your point. However when it matched the panty DNA and the partial fingernail DNA, it was a slam dunk. It is from the killer.
Hi Biz,
IF you can produce any source where the Touch DNA matched anything but itself, please post it. Otherwise, I will assume that you are making that up.

I did not write the article on DNA, I merely posted my source. The Touch DNA was NOT identified at the murder scene, it was NOT collected from the body, or AT the murder scene, or even at the TIME of the investigations. That DNA is worthless.

However, if you can provide us with a credible or reliable source that tells that the touch DNA matched anything that was initially collected, I will concede that you have a point. Otherwise, I will say you made it up like how I think you may have made up other things.
CC
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#17 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA obtained from the thermal underwear was not cross contamination. It was touch DNA which is obtainable from skin cels deposited after force. refer to my earlier link
In that case Biz, please explain why they either did not get any, or did not test the cord on the garrote? A lot more force was put on that than the suspected longjohns?
CC
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#18 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
If JMK had matched the DNA evidence, they would have been justified in investigating him further. I still wonder about the reported graves under the house. No one ever looked into that. Even if he wasn't involved in the Ramsey case there were so many allegations made that were never looked into. LE never requested the case records from Sonoma, they never looked into allegations made by the former wives, the graves under the house. His bizarre behavior has gone uninvestigated for over a decade just because he was let go in the Ramsey case. What bothers me is this is how there are serial killers out there that get away with killing dozens of people before getting caught.
Hi Biz,
Going by the developments that we seen, it appears to me that Mary Lacy had JMK arrested in Bangkok, with the hopes that his DNA would have matched the touch DNA, which was a near impossibility if he was not responsible for the murder, but a better possibility if he was indeed responsible for the murder. Being that the DNA failed to match, they had nothing but his false confession that was full of holes anyway.
CC

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#19 Feb 19, 2011
Biz wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA obtained from the thermal underwear was not cross contamination. It was touch DNA which is obtainable from skin cels deposited after force. refer to my earlier link
I don't believe I said cross contamination Biz, it could just as easily have been TDNA from a careless lab technician who, after the first tests were done immediately after the murder, didn't think about gloves when returning the clothes to an evidence bag. It could have been many things.
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#20 Feb 19, 2011
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe I said cross contamination Biz, it could just as easily have been TDNA from a careless lab technician who, after the first tests were done immediately after the murder, didn't think about gloves when returning the clothes to an evidence bag. It could have been many things.
Hi L_E,
But Biz claims that the touch DNA matched the fingernail DNA, and the blood spot mixture. I am anxiously waiting for some source to support that. IF Biz can provide us with a reliable source, then she has a very powerful argument.

I doubt that Biz can provide us with a source, BUT, if the TDNA matched the DNA under the fingernails, and on the blood stain mixture, then we should conclude that the TDNA came from the murder scene.(NOT necessarily the murderer, but at least from the murder scene.)
CC

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 39
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
Note-odd detail? 4 hr Undrtheradar 432
Lou Smit window video 13 hr Note 3
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." Aug 29 Maqa 28
What kind of instrument yields this type of wound? Aug 29 Just Wondering 84
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Aug 28 JTF 7,470
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) Aug 27 Just Wondering 1,050
The London Letter Aug 25 Bee 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••