DNA Expert or DNA Fraud?

[Anti-K]

As anyone who takes the time to START reading this will soon realize, there’s just TOO MUCH here, but I could have gone on and on – I didn’t.

This all came began with a post by Old South requesting CSI-England to register at and bring her DNA “expertise” over to CrimeChatter. From this ensued a brief discussion over the merits of CSI-England posting “over there.”

I wrote that,“CSI won’t be accepted as a DNA expert at CC. CSI has made too many mistakes re: DNA to be accepted as an expert…” and,“CSI may be a DNA expert (I doubt it, I don’t care), but her mistakes stand and even without them skepticism is justified…” <1>

CSI-England, in her reply wrote,“As to my "mistakes," please point them out. I don't believe you can.” <2>

Well, I can.

I have.

I meant to have this up last weekend, but I never got around to finishing it. Originally intended as a Top Ten List, I think I only went as far as Number Eight. I might add the last two at some future date (Race and the Number One DNA Mistake made by the DNA-Expert is…).

There were almost TOO MANY mistakes to choose from, but I managed to categorize them to some degree and I decided to just stick to the obvious ones and to the ones that don’t require any special knowledge or explanation to demonstrate.

CSI-England may very well be a DNA expert, university educated with ten years experience working in CSI, primarily with DNA testing/matching, replicating and amplifying DNA and analyzing crime scene evidence while testifying in Court as an expert in DNA and maybe her colleagues and the Courts see her as an expert; but, here - on Topix - she made a lot of DNA mistakes.
…

<1> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...
<2> immediately following <1>

AK

[Anti-K]

Before getting to the mistakes, I thought it might be interesting to revisit a FEW of CSI-England’s claims regarding her DNA expertise:

CSI-England wrote:
“I’m not an expert
This was my field of study in university and I've worked with DNA for nearly ten years now. Or at least I did until I got married and moved. I don't claim to be an expert, there are others who know far more than I, but I do claim more knowledge than a mere student.” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

CSI-England wrote:
“What makes me think I know more than Mary Lacy? Well, the fact that I worked with DNA testing/matching for more than ten years, for one thing.

“What experience or education do you have in LE or science that makes you think I'm clueless? Ordinarily, I would not ask personal questions, but you seem intent on asking them of me, so I'll reciprocate. I have nothing to hide in my background. I worked in CSI for ten years, primarily in DNA testing/matching. I have never claimed to be an expert…” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

cyber wrote:
<quoted text>This is really fascinating but where did you get all this information? I don't believe you found it in a news article because, if so, media would have hit the roof.

CSI-England replied:
“My job is working with DNA, DNA replication and amplification and analyzing crime scene evidence.” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

cyber wrote:
<quoted text>Where did you get the information that the PCR resulted in shadow banding in the JBR case?

CSI-England replied:
“In several reports that were sent to the lab in which I work” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

CSI-England wrote:
“I am an expert on DNA and..” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

CSI-England wrote:
“I've learned nothing from TV. I've never seen one CSI show. Everything I learned I learned in university.” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

CSI-England wrote:
“Well, I've testified in court as an expert witness on DNA many times.” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

CSI-England wrote:
“…but I've testified in court as an expert witness in matters of DNA.”

CSI-England wrote:
“I'm not an expert in forensic DNA because I work in the area. I'm an expert in forensic DNA because I'm considered to be so by my colleagues and because the court sees me as such.” http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

AK

[Anti-K]

1) DNA MISTAKES

CSI-England wrote that STR,“…doesn't work for degraded DNA at all.” <1> She provided a quote and link to back up her claim. <2> CSI-England, wanting to be sure I had seen the comment (I suppose) also wrote to me,“I clued you in about STR's worth in analyzing degraded DNA on another thread. It's pretty worthless if the DNA is degraded.” <4>

The Mistake:
The quote/source doesn’t support CSI-England’s claim. Either she didn’t read the article she quoted, or she didn’t understand it. <3>

Degraded DNA is fragmented DNA. It is “deteriorating” and breaking up into pieces.
Longer fragments (pieces) break up before shorter pieces.

VNTR are longer than STR (ShortTR).

“The smaller size of STR alleles make STR markers better candidates for use in forensic applications, in which degraded DNA is common. PCR amplification of degraded DNA samples can be better accomplished with smaller target product sizes.” <5>

“The potential for analysis of degraded DNA samples is an area where multiplex STR systems really shine over previously used DNA markers…” <6>

“ADVANTAGES OF STRS OVER TRADITIONAL RFLP TECHNIQUES
“PCR-based STRs have several advantages over conventional Southern blotting techniques of the larger variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs). Discrete alleles from STR systems may be obtained due to their smaller size, which puts them in the size range where DNA fragments differing by a single basepair in size may be differentiated. Determination of discrete alleles allows results to be compared easily between laboratories without binning. In addition, smaller quantities of DNA, including degraded DNA, may be typed using STRs. Thus, the quantity and integrity of the DNA sample is less of an issue with PCR-based typing methods than with conventional RFLP methods.” <7>

The claim that STR’s don’t work for degraded DNA “AT ALL” is ludicrous. HOW could a DNA “expert” get this simple, basic, fundamental concept WRONG?
…

<1> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<2> http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp...

<3>See rebuttal here: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<4>http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<5> http://www.forensicdnacenter.com/dna-str.html

<6> “Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers” by J M Butler; p. 145, 146

<7> http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/intro.htm

AK

[Anti-K]

2) DNA MISTAKES

In a reply to Learnin, CSI-England wrote that PCR is,“…useful. In fact, PCR of variable tandem number of repeats (VNTR) is, as of now, the standard for forensic identification.” <1>

The Mistake:
VNTR was the “standard” in the O.J. days and leading up to the murder of Jonbenet. When VNTR was the standard, samples were usually tested at only four to six markers. STRs began to take over in the late ‘nineties. CODIS was established in 1998 and CODIS is based on STR. <2>

How is it that a DNA “expert,” Court experienced, doesn’t know that VNTR was replaced by STR about ten YEARS ago? Another mistake?
…

<1> learnin wrote: <quoted text> So, if I understand you correctly, CSI, you are stating that PCR amplification yields false markers and the longjohn markers were matched to some of these false markers? Is the PCR amplification ever of any use, then?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<2> “In 1996, the FBI commenced an effort to develop a set of STR loci to be used as standard referents for the calculations of RMPs in forensic DNA analysis. In November 1997, the FBI settled on thirteen core STR loci to be the basis of the CODIS (COmbined DNA Index System) national DNA Database, which was launched in 1998.”
<snip>
“By 2000 the FBI laboratory and many others stopped using RFLP analysis altogether in favor of PCR analysis of the thirteen CODIS STRs.149 Because of their use in the FBI database, the thirteen CODIS STRs have become a national (indeed international) standard and have come to ‘dominate the genetic information that has been collected to date on human beings.’”
See: B. CODIS and the Move from VNTRs to STRs http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerende...

AK

[Anti-K]

3) DNA MISTAKES

CSI-England has made several remarks regarding PCR always presenting it in an at-best-questionable and at-worst-negative manner. <1>

The Mistake:
Yes, PCR has its limitations (so did RFLP!), it is susceptible to contamination and stutter is a commonplace effect.

However, these limitations are long recognized, routinely encountered and strategies/protocols for dealing with these limitations are well established. So well established that PCR has virtually replaced RFLP and began to so in the late ‘nineties totally replacing RFLP in most labs by 2000. <2> In the last ten years PCR was used in virtually every case where DNA was processed.

PCR and PCR/STR has been through the Courts and is no longer even controversial. <3> A Court experienced DNA “expert” should be aware of this. Another mistake?
…

<1> Too numerous to link! Primarily on the “Clues in the Case” thread, beginning approx. p. 2 http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<2> “By 2000 the FBI laboratory and many others stopped using RFLP analysis altogether in favor of PCR analysis of the thirteen CODIS STRs.” See: B. CODIS and the Move from VNTRs to STRs http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerende...

<3> suggested reading: http://www.google.ca/search...

AK

[Anti-K]

4) DNA MISTAKES

CSI wrote that,“The DNA under her fingernails only had three markers, not enough to compare with any other DNA.” <1>

The Mistake:
You can compare as few as one marker.

If Sample A is probed at Location 1 and if Location 1 is identified, then you can compare Sample A/Location 1 to Sample B/Location 1.

If all you know is a person’s eye color, you can compare eye color to eye color; if all you know is eye color and height, you can compare eye color and height; if all you know is eye color, height and gender then you can compare eye color, height and gander.

If all you have is CSF1PO, D2S1338 and D3S1358 then you can compare CSF1PO, D2S1338 and D3S1358.

There is nothing controversial about this.

HOW could a DNA “expert” get this simple, basic, fundamental concept WRONG?…
…

<1>http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

AK

[Anti-K]

5) DNA MISTAKES

CSI-England responded to Koldkase that “30%- 50% of the population” would match at three markers. <1> And, to hatcheck she wrote,“it's possible that with only three markers the DNA could be consistent with many, many people and many, many samples of DNA. Millions.” <2>

The Mistake:
CSI-England’s claim that “30%- 50% of the population” would match at three markers contradicts her earlier claim that three markers are “not enough to compare with any other DNA.” If three markers are not enough to compare then how can she claim that “30%- 50% of the population” would match?

As demonstrated above (Mistake 4), three markers can be (and were) compared so CSI-England’s self-contradicting claim that “30%- 50% of the population” would match at three markers can be tested.

“30%- 50% of the population” is “3 out of 10”–“one out of two.” If this match estimate were true then BPD should have found at least ONE match amongst the various people tested using the fingernail DNA. <3> However, since no match was found we have reason to question CSI-England’s estimate.

As it is, we can calculate the approximate match probability ourselves using the FBI’s 13.66 frequency <4> and the Product Rule <5>: 1/13.66 x 1/13.66 x 1.13.66 = 1/2548.89. So, one out of every two thousand, five hundred and forty-eight.

We can be generous to CSI-England and call it 1/2000 – one out of two thousand. That’s a far cry from “3 out of 10” or “one out of two.” This figure is also, unlike CSI’s estimation, consistent with BPD’s failure to find a “match.”

Clearly, CSI-England’s estimation was in error. Somehow, this DNA “expert” made another Mistake.
…

<1> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<2> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<3> panty DNA wasn’t isolated and entered into CODIS until ~2003. This means that all exclusions prior to 2003 must have used the fingernail DNA for comparison.

<4> An FBI Caucasian Population Study concluded an approx 1/13.66 chance of matching at each location for two randomly selected individuals.“Journal of Forensic Science,” Vol 44, number 6

<5> “According to the product rule, the probability of two independent events equals the probability of the first event times the probability of the second; with n independent events the separate probabilities of each of the n events are multiplied together to give the probability of their joint occurrence. Thus if the probability that a person had allele A = 1/10 and the probability that he had allele B = 1/10 and the probability that he had allele C = 1/10, and if the probability that the person had one of these alleles was not affected by whether or not he had either or both of the others, the probability that the person would have alleles A, B, and C would be 1/10 × 1/10 × 1/10, or 1/1000. Richard Lempert, The Suspect Population and DNA Identification, 34 Jurimetrics J. 1, 1 n.3 (1993).”

AK

[Anti-K]

6) DNA MISTAKES

CSI-England wrote,“Yes, ten DNA markers did match nine DNA markers.” <1> And,“All Bode did was say that ‘nine out of ten markers matched.’” <2> And,“Bode COMPARED the DNA it sourced from two places in the long johns to the DNA in the panties and found that 9/10 markers ‘matched.’" <3>

The Mistake:
Setting aside the confusion of “ten DNA markers did match nine DNA markers,” the expression “9/10 (nine out of ten) markers matches” implies that one out of ten did not match. If one marker is mismatched, then the samples do not match and the samples CANNOT have come from the same donor.

In this case there were no non-matching markers. If 9 markers were compared then the match would be 9/9. Expressing the match as 9/10 (nine out of ten) is inaccurate and misleading and “ten DNA markers did match nine DNA markers” is simply confusing.

Confusing, inaccurate and misleading mistakes such as this are not the sort of thing one should expect from a DNA “expert” qualified and experienced at testifying before the Courts.
…

<1> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/boulder-co/TN...

<2> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/boulder-co/TN...

<3> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/boulder-co/TN...

AK

[Anti-K]

7) DNA MISTAKES

CSI-England wrote,“You need more than ten or even twelve markers to call anything a "match."<1> To back up this erroneous claim CSI-England offered links to (and explained, sort of..?) identification of Ancestry.

The Mistake:
You can match one marker to one marker by comparing that one marker to a corresponding marker (see Mistake 4).

Also, CSI-England confuses identification of Ancestry with identification of an individual.

To her credit, when called on this, CSI-England actually admitted the mistake and apologized:“I should not have posted the "common ancestor" thing at all, Detroit, as that was confusing. Obviously, it confused you. I apologize. It made it sound like there were many more markers to match than there were. I agree with that. You match far more markers when comparing ancestors than in trying to match a DNA sample to its source. You get no argument from me on that.” <2>

CSI-England makes a DNA-Amateur mistake and confuses a “match” with “identification.” A “match” means that one DNA marker in Sample A matches the corresponding marker from Sample B. Identification is probabilistic and probability is determined by the number of matching markers. The more markers that match the greater the odds that Sample A and Sample B came from the same donor (if there is even ONE non-matching marker then there is NO match between samples).
..

<1> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/boulder-co/TN...

<2> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/boulder-co/TN...

AK

[Anti-K]

8) DNA MISTAKES

CSI-England, in a reply to me, <1> wrote that the panty DNA “could match millions upon millions of people.” <2> She also wrote,“Mary Lacy says 9/10 markers on the long john DNA "match" the panty DNA. <3> My reaction to that is,‘So what?’ That does not mean the DNA is from the same person. You and I might have nine markers that match.” <4>

The Mistake:
CSI-England presents the 9+ marker match as a highly probable and an expected and common finding. If it were true that a 9+ marker profile could match millions and millions of people than 9+, 10, 11, 12 and 13 marker profiles would be virtually useless.

If it were true that a 9+ marker profile could match “millions and millions of people” then several people out of the 200+ compared should have matched and the CODIS runs should have produced many hits. The Boulder population was ~300,000. 300,000 is far less then “millions and millions;” using CSI-England’s figures, we shouldn’t be surprised if ALL of Boulder matched!

Clearly, there is something wrong with CSI-England’s estimation (or understanding) of Match Probability. In reality the odds of matching at 9+ are astronomical - 0.000,000,000, 045 (1 in 450,000,000,000)! <5>

The odds of matching at one is ~ 1/13.66, never mind 1/millions and millions!! This is a ridiculously HUGE Mistake for a DNA “expert” to make.
…

<1> Anti-K wrote: <quoted text> “Your description of the panty DNA and its usefulness is contradicted by the facts: the second blood spot yielded 9+ markers…” see <2>,

<2> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<3> CSI-England is incorrect regarding Lacey’s match description; also, see Mistake 6 in post above.

<4> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

<5> The Birthday Problem in Las Vegas http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/science_law/...

AK

[Paris Shillton]

CISExgland is a brilliant DNA expert, super model, who lived on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch and is married to "The Chef To The Stars", likes only old classic movies and reading books, and wastes endless hours blogging at Topix about how smart she is, what's not to believe?

I guess guys have their "Fantasy Football leagues", and some women have their "Fantasy CSI courtrooms".

[CSIEngland]

I know this goes over YOUR head, Shill and AK's head, just like everything FACTUAL goes over any IDIs head, but I've stated on here MANY TIMES that I'm ON A VACATION WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS. I know you both saw that. WW1 has asked me for a page number in a book and I told her I DON'T HAVE MY BOOKS HERE, I'M ON VACATION. And no, I'm not a model and never claimed to be. Models are not very attractive people. I wouldn't want to be one.

This is just proof that IDIs don't really believe what in an IDI theory. So, one person comes along who works in a lab analyzing DNA evidence and AK feels the need to waste innumerable hours doing something no one really cares about because people have minds and they are going to make them up the way they want to IRREGARDLESS of what you or AK posts. But when someone comes along and says, "The DNA isn't proof of an intruder at all" and states reasons why, AK basically wastes his life to try to prove that person wrong. I know he can't, but I didn't even bother to read his posts, just scanned them last night and didn't bother to reply.

We only get THAT desperate when we have nothing else. AK is acting just like the very, very guilty Ramseys acted - being very careful which statements he attacks, then twisting them into something they aren't. Just like he didn't add the fact that I've said I think THE DNA IS FROM THE SAME PERSON. No, it doesn't have to be, but I, personally, think it is. But, I believe it got on there INNOCENTLY.

I realize this foreign DNA is ALL you IDIs have, so if your bruised egos need to attack, go ahead. I don't care. But I thought it good to point out all AK left out and the desperation it proves.

[Anti-K]

CSIEngland wrote:

I know this goes over YOUR head, Shill and AK's head, just like everything FACTUAL goes over any IDIs head, but I've stated on here MANY TIMES that I'm ON A VACATION WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS. I know you both saw that. WW1 has asked me for a page number in a book and I told her I DON'T HAVE MY BOOKS HERE, I'M ON VACATION. And no, I'm not a model and never claimed to be. Models are not very attractive people. I wouldn't want to be one.
This is just proof that IDIs don't really believe what in an IDI theory. So, one person comes along who works in a lab analyzing DNA evidence and AK feels the need to waste innumerable hours doing something no one really cares about because people have minds and they are going to make them up the way they want to IRREGARDLESS of what you or AK posts. But when someone comes along and says, "The DNA isn't proof of an intruder at all" and states reasons why, AK basically wastes his life to try to prove that person wrong. I know he can't, but I didn't even bother to read his posts, just scanned them last night and didn't bother to reply.
We only get THAT desperate when we have nothing else. AK is acting just like the very, very guilty Ramseys acted - being very careful which statements he attacks, then twisting them into something they aren't. Just like he didn't add the fact that I've said I think THE DNA IS FROM THE SAME PERSON. No, it doesn't have to be, but I, personally, think it is. But, I believe it got on there INNOCENTLY.
I realize this foreign DNA is ALL you IDIs have, so if your bruised egos need to attack, go ahead. I don't care. But I thought it good to point out all AK left out and the desperation it proves.

Quit whining.

I said you had made too many mistakes for anyone to accept you as a DNA expert and you said you hadn’t made any mistakes and you challenged me on it, saying that I couldn’t point any out.

You were wrong.

A person of your supposed education and experience shouldn’t need any of her “BOOKS” to get her DNA info straight. What does being on vacation with too much time on your hands have to do with it?

The MISTAKES pointed out in posts above are MISTAKES in general. They aren’t specific to the DNA in this case. They are the MISTAKES a (obvious) DNA-Fraud might make. You’ve been exposed. Get over it and move on.

And, okay – yeah, for sure NOW you say that “THE DNA IS FROM THE SAME PERSON”– NOW, after I (and a cpl others) pounded the FACTS into you post after post, but when you first started your “I’m an expert’ Bullsh*t you were pretty adamant and forceful with your claims that there was NO MATCH. Are you so far gone that you can’t even remember your own posts or position?

AK

[Vance]

Anti-Ks voice of sound (DNA) reason to unseat the absolute nonsense is spot on.

Not to overlook Shillton's nice little wrap-up with a pretty bow and all.

Well done!

[BrotherMoon]

Lacy/Tracey JMK DNA

[learnin]

Anti-K wrote:

As anyone who takes the time to START reading this will soon realize, there’s just TOO MUCH here, but I could have gone on and on – I didn’t.
This all came began with a post by Old South requesting CSI-England to register at and bring her DNA “expertise” over to CrimeChatter. From this ensued a brief discussion over the merits of CSI-England posting “over there.”
I wrote that,“CSI won’t be accepted as a DNA expert at CC. CSI has made too many mistakes re: DNA to be accepted as an expert…” and,“CSI may be a DNA expert (I doubt it, I don’t care), but her mistakes stand and even without them skepticism is justified…” <1>
CSI-England, in her reply wrote,“As to my "mistakes," please point them out. I don't believe you can.” <2>
Well, I can.
I have.
I meant to have this up last weekend, but I never got around to finishing it. Originally intended as a Top Ten List, I think I only went as far as Number Eight. I might add the last two at some future date (Race and the Number One DNA Mistake made by the DNA-Expert is…).
There were almost TOO MANY mistakes to choose from, but I managed to categorize them to some degree and I decided to just stick to the obvious ones and to the ones that don’t require any special knowledge or explanation to demonstrate.
CSI-England may very well be a DNA expert, university educated with ten years experience working in CSI, primarily with DNA testing/matching, replicating and amplifying DNA and analyzing crime scene evidence while testifying in Court as an expert in DNA and maybe her colleagues and the Courts see her as an expert; but, here - on Topix - she made a lot of DNA mistakes.
…
<1> http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...
<2> immediately following <1>
AK

Who told you she made mistakes? Your friend who is an expert on DNA?

[learnin]

BrotherMoon wrote:

Lacy/Tracey JMK DNA

Exactly.

[learnin]

CSIEngland wrote:

I know this goes over YOUR head, Shill and AK's head, just like everything FACTUAL goes over any IDIs head, but I've stated on here MANY TIMES that I'm ON A VACATION WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS. I know you both saw that. WW1 has asked me for a page number in a book and I told her I DON'T HAVE MY BOOKS HERE, I'M ON VACATION. And no, I'm not a model and never claimed to be. Models are not very attractive people. I wouldn't want to be one.
This is just proof that IDIs don't really believe what in an IDI theory. So, one person comes along who works in a lab analyzing DNA evidence and AK feels the need to waste innumerable hours doing something no one really cares about because people have minds and they are going to make them up the way they want to IRREGARDLESS of what you or AK posts. But when someone comes along and says, "The DNA isn't proof of an intruder at all" and states reasons why, AK basically wastes his life to try to prove that person wrong. I know he can't, but I didn't even bother to read his posts, just scanned them last night and didn't bother to reply.
We only get THAT desperate when we have nothing else. AK is acting just like the very, very guilty Ramseys acted - being very careful which statements he attacks, then twisting them into something they aren't. Just like he didn't add the fact that I've said I think THE DNA IS FROM THE SAME PERSON. No, it doesn't have to be, but I, personally, think it is. But, I believe it got on there INNOCENTLY.
I realize this foreign DNA is ALL you IDIs have, so if your bruised egos need to attack, go ahead. I don't care. But I thought it good to point out all AK left out and the desperation it proves.

CSI, I'm glad you're here. You posted many good dna articles that confirmed what my common sense had already told me. DNA, harvested from trace amounts of skin cells, opens up a pandora's box. It's not like taking DNA from blood stains or semen. Semen and blood almost present a 100% certainty that the source was at the crime scene. But even this is not a 100% certainty because there is always a possibility of planting evidence or contamination.

Trace amounts of skin cells are transferrable. I'll repeat it again. Common house hold dust contains shedded skin cells. I can rub my hand across a dusty counter and I might deposit someones DNA on an item that said person never came in contact with.

I do not need complicated scientific DNA analysis and studies presented. Common sense will do just fine.

I guarantee you that prisoners are being released because of DNA evidence which is faulty.

The DNA evidence, in the Ramsey case, is important. I do not dismiss it's significance. No doubt, AK will remind me that primary transfer is most likely and I will agree with him. But I insist that it is not the only means of transfer. I will remind AK that unsourced DNA, if it belongs to someone present that night, still does not exonerate the Ramseys.

Until this unknown DNA is sourced, no one should be exonerated on this DNA evidence alone....NO ONE.

[Anti-K]

learnin wrote:

<quoted text>
Who told you she made mistakes? Your friend who is an expert on DNA?

Even if someone had told me about the “mistakes” the “mistakes” would still remain – CSI-England would still be a DNA-Fraud.

BUT, as it turns out, the “mistakes” were obvious. I pointed many of them out when CSI-England made the original posts.

I don’t have a friend who is an “expert in DNA.” I have corresponded in the past with someone who is an “expert;” but that was around the time that the news regarding the ‘touch’ DNA was first released and those conversations revolved purely around the subject of transfer.

AK

[Anti-K]

learnin wrote:

<quoted text>
CSI, I'm glad you're here. You posted many good dna articles that confirmed what my common sense had already told me. DNA, harvested from trace amounts of skin cells, opens up a pandora's box. It's not like taking DNA from blood stains or semen. Semen and blood almost present a 100% certainty that the source was at the crime scene. But even this is not a 100% certainty because there is always a possibility of planting evidence or contamination.
Trace amounts of skin cells are transferrable. I'll repeat it again. Common house hold dust contains shedded skin cells. I can rub my hand across a dusty counter and I might deposit someones DNA on an item that said person never came in contact with.
I do not need complicated scientific DNA analysis and studies presented. Common sense will do just fine.
I guarantee you that prisoners are being released because of DNA evidence which is faulty.
The DNA evidence, in the Ramsey case, is important. I do not dismiss it's significance. No doubt, AK will remind me that primary transfer is most likely and I will agree with him. But I insist that it is not the only means of transfer. I will remind AK that unsourced DNA, if it belongs to someone present that night, still does not exonerate the Ramseys.
Until this unknown DNA is sourced, no one should be exonerated on this DNA evidence alone....NO ONE.

Nothing of what you say changes the simple fact that CSI-England is a DNA–Fraud and a child could have tripped her up.

I have no interest in discussing, on this thread, your misunderstandings and delusions regarding DNA transfer.

You don’t need to remind me that “unsourced DNA, if it belongs to someone present that night, still does not exonerate the Ramseys.” And I agree that “no one should be exonerated on this DNA evidence alone....NO ONE.”

But, then again I’m not aware of ANYONE that was exonerated on the “DNA evidence alone.”

All the DNA evidence does is connect a person to the victim. And, CSI-England’s DNA postings exposed her as a DNA-Fraud.

Your posting on this thread and this post of yours quoted above are bringing a bit of a smile to my face because when I first decided to start this thread I had considered doing it as a Top Ten List and you figured prominently in the “Number One DNA Mistake made by the DNA-Expert is…”

AK