DNA Expert or DNA Fraud?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of81
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Marc Renton

Gold Coast, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Oct 5, 2009
 

Judged:

1

It is all fun and games to sit back in your armchairs and talk about DNA
Why not try living it for a change.
I spent 12 years of my life in prison for two violent armed robberies that I did NOT commit. Why because a liar name Ken Cox from the Queensland John Tonge Centre told the court that he found my DNA in a balaclava at a crime scene. Check this then if you dont believe
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s72417...

I stress that I have nothing to gain from saying this, as I am out of custody. Shame on you Queensland - if they can do it to me, remember that they can do it to YOU.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Oct 5, 2009
 
Thanks for coming forward Marc, and reminding everyone that real lives are at stake, and innocent people are behind bars all over the world.

Since: Sep 09

Chester Springs PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Oct 5, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Marc Renton wrote:
It is all fun and games to sit back in your armchairs and talk about DNA
Why not try living it for a change.
I spent 12 years of my life in prison for two violent armed robberies that I did NOT commit. Why because a liar name Ken Cox from the Queensland John Tonge Centre told the court that he found my DNA in a balaclava at a crime scene. Check this then if you dont believe
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s72417...
I stress that I have nothing to gain from saying this, as I am out of custody. Shame on you Queensland - if they can do it to me, remember that they can do it to YOU.
Marc, I am sorry about what happened to you. In fact, "sorry" is more than inadequate. There really are no words.

DNA science, which is still in it's infancy, is the scariest, most prejudicial thing, that can be brought into a courtroom. The average juror, is going to believe whoever speaks the clearest, the defense, or the prosecution...regardless of the truth of the science. Secondly, corruption exists in the police forces of every major city on this planet.

And because people take DNA as gospel, a corrupt official need a only plant a spot of DNA, and it's all over.

And an honest "expert" who misinterprets the facts, can send a man to prison for a long time.

I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's inexcusable, and it's unaaceptable. You have my deepest sympathy.

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Oct 5, 2009
 
Marc Renton wrote:
It is all fun and games to sit back in your armchairs and talk about DNA
Why not try living it for a change.
I spent 12 years of my life in prison for two violent armed robberies that I did NOT commit. Why because a liar name Ken Cox from the Queensland John Tonge Centre told the court that he found my DNA in a balaclava at a crime scene. Check this then if you dont believe
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s72417...
I stress that I have nothing to gain from saying this, as I am out of custody. Shame on you Queensland - if they can do it to me, remember that they can do it to YOU.
What about the robberies you DID commit?

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Oct 5, 2009
 
candy wrote:
Thanks for coming forward Marc, and reminding everyone that real lives are at stake, and innocent people are behind bars all over the world.
And in front of them.

Since: Sep 09

Chester Springs PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Oct 5, 2009
 
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the robberies you DID commit?
Brother Moon, that is out of line. Marc is speaking specifically about the case in which he was wrongfully convicted. He never said he was a choirboy. That's out of line Brother Moon.(Mark, Brother Moon has an acerbic wit, he means no harm)
learnin

Perry, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Oct 5, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Marc Renton wrote:
It is all fun and games to sit back in your armchairs and talk about DNA
Why not try living it for a change.
I spent 12 years of my life in prison for two violent armed robberies that I did NOT commit. Why because a liar name Ken Cox from the Queensland John Tonge Centre told the court that he found my DNA in a balaclava at a crime scene. Check this then if you dont believe
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s72417...
I stress that I have nothing to gain from saying this, as I am out of custody. Shame on you Queensland - if they can do it to me, remember that they can do it to YOU.
If I may Marc, I would like to present a quotation out of the article you sent:

Narration: But in the last few years, the ground rules have changed radically. Testing for DNA is a thousand times more sensitive than it was five years ago. Itís now possible to gather traces of DNA that you canít even see.

"Peter Zahra, Senior Public Defender, NSW: It would be invisible to your eye. You are talking about as I say 200 picograms. A picogram is one one hundred billionth of a gram, so in a sense people leave their DNA everywhere. You sit in a chair, you will leave your DNA there. So very small small amounts of DNA are required."

People leave their DNA everywhere....We must tread very carefully here.......

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Oct 5, 2009
 
Marc Renton wrote:
It is all fun and games to sit back in your armchairs and talk about DNA
Why not try living it for a change.
I spent 12 years of my life in prison for two violent armed robberies that I did NOT commit. Why because a liar name Ken Cox from the Queensland John Tonge Centre told the court that he found my DNA in a balaclava at a crime scene. Check this then if you dont believe
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s72417...
I stress that I have nothing to gain from saying this, as I am out of custody. Shame on you Queensland - if they can do it to me, remember that they can do it to YOU.
I'm really sorry that happened to you, Marc.

I think this shows what I said: that the more sophisticated DNA tests become, the more we open a Pandora's box. We leave our DNA everywhere we go, we pick up other's DNA everywhere we go. Sadly, I think some innocent people are going to be convicted of crimes they did NOT commit because of DNA evidence.

Thanks for sharing your story and letting everyone know how easy it is to wrongly convict someone based on DNA evidence.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Nov 7, 2009
 
Well done AK.
Old South

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Nov 8, 2009
 
How sad, Marc! But think of it this way: You have made it possible for many people who would never have thought it could be done, to see that DNA evidence can be planted. I never put any stock in the notion, but after reading the link you provided I can see that not only is it possible, but it is probable.

Now, as for AK's statement: "But, then again Iím not aware of ANYONE that was exonerated on the ďDNA evidence alone.Ē

Well, I am aware that Mary Lacy released JMK after making a statement that she did so due to his DNA not being a match. Since she did not mention at the time other reasons attached to the DNA mis-match, Lacy apparently released him on the DNA evidence alone. Of course, others later chimed in with other so-called "evidence" that backed up Lacy's untimely release of Karr.

In another thread, I mentioned how the crime lab took only ONE DAY to examine the KARR DNA that had been obtained by buccal swab. This is highly unusual since it is the norm for such analysis to take a minimum of FOUR days for an accurate analysis. This same lab (the doctor director whose name escapes me now) refused to analyze samples of Karr's DNA that were taken covertly by investigators while he was in Bangkok. We know such samples are taken and analyzed as a matter of routine by other labs. So, to me, this and then for the hastily obtained results of the buccal swab analysis to be the determining factor in releasing Karr, I have become suspicious of these "results" -- especially when so many in LE were hell-bent and determined that the Ramseys were guilty. It just wouldn't do them for the Karr DNA to be a match.
Old South

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Nov 10, 2009
 
Old South wrote:
How sad, Marc! But think of it this way: You have made it possible for many people who would never have thought it could be done, to see that DNA evidence can be planted. I never put any stock in the notion, but after reading the link you provided I can see that not only is it possible, but it is probable.
Now, as for AK's statement: "But, then again Iím not aware of ANYONE that was exonerated on the ďDNA evidence alone.Ē
Well, I am aware that Mary Lacy released JMK after making a statement that she did so due to his DNA not being a match. Since she did not mention at the time other reasons attached to the DNA mis-match, Lacy apparently released him on the DNA evidence alone. Of course, others later chimed in with other so-called "evidence" that backed up Lacy's untimely release of Karr.
In another thread, I mentioned how the crime lab took only ONE DAY to examine the KARR DNA that had been obtained by buccal swab. This is highly unusual since it is the norm for such analysis to take a minimum of FOUR days for an accurate analysis. This same lab (the doctor director whose name escapes me now) refused to analyze samples of Karr's DNA that were taken covertly by investigators while he was in Bangkok. We know such samples are taken and analyzed as a matter of routine by other labs. So, to me, this and then for the hastily obtained results of the buccal swab analysis to be the determining factor in releasing Karr, I have become suspicious of these "results" -- especially when so many in LE were hell-bent and determined that the Ramseys were guilty. It just wouldn't do them for the Karr DNA to be a match.
Does not anyone have any comment upon the analysis of JMK's DNA being completed within the short time period of possibly less than 1 day? CSI has said that even under the best of conditions getting an accurate reading on DNA in one day would not be feasible. She goes on to say that when the evidentiary DNA is contaminated, such as all DNA in the case appears to be, any comparison -- in order to be determined to be accurate and legitimate -- would of necessity take at least FOUR days to complete.

I find it highly questionable that the testing of JMK's DNA was accurate. And, as I said, since it was tested in the lab of the Boulder Police Department I think it is even more suspicious, especially since the agenda of the BPD was to garner enough evidence to put responsibility for the crime upon the Ramseys, i.e., Patsy Ramsey. IOW, I think the goal was to prove Karr innocent rather than guilty.(Remember, Karr was D.A. Lacy's baby; the BPD had no interest in proving Karr guilty. Their interest was in proving him NOT guilty so they could proceed with a case against Patsy.) Although time was limited insofar as they had only 72 hours to make the case on Karr, even after the results of the speedy DNA test had been submitted to Lacy, there was no follow-up test to back up the one submitted on fast-track. Had they done this, to me the original results would have been more acceptable.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Nov 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I find it highly questionable that the testing of JMK's DNA was accurate. And, as I said, since it was tested in the lab of the Boulder Police Department I think it is even more suspicious, especially since the agenda of the BPD was to garner enough evidence to put responsibility for the crime upon the Ramseys, i.e., Patsy Ramsey. IOW, I think the goal was to prove Karr innocent rather than guilty.(Remember, Karr was D.A. Lacy's baby; the BPD had no interest in proving Karr guilty.

The BPD doesn't have a DNA lab, and they never had custody of Karr's DNA. Tom Bennett took a buccal swab of Karr's DNA, subject to to court order, at Jeffco airport, and it was tested at the Denver Crime Lab, where the unsourced DNA also was found during tetsing there.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Nov 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quote: "I find it highly questionable that the testing of JMK's DNA was accurate. And, as I said, since it was tested in the lab of the Boulder Police Department I think it is even more suspicious, especially since the agenda of the BPD was to garner enough evidence to put responsibility for the crime upon the Ramseys, i.e., Patsy Ramsey. IOW, I think the goal was to prove Karr innocent rather than guilty.(Remember, Karr was D.A. Lacy's baby; the BPD had no interest in proving Karr guilty."

The BPD doesn't have a DNA lab, and they never had custody of Karr's DNA. Tom Bennett took a buccal swab of Karr's DNA, subject to to court order, at Jeffco airport, and it was tested at the Denver Crime Lab, where the unsourced DNA also was found during testing there.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Nov 10, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Still haven't learned how to use a reply function, I see. No wonder Steve refuses to converse with you.

Oh, well, it doesn't matter. You never have anything enlightening to say anyway.
Old South

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Nov 10, 2009
 
candy wrote:
Quote: "I find it highly questionable that the testing of JMK's DNA was accurate. And, as I said, since it was tested in the lab of the Boulder Police Department I think it is even more suspicious, especially since the agenda of the BPD was to garner enough evidence to put responsibility for the crime upon the Ramseys, i.e., Patsy Ramsey. IOW, I think the goal was to prove Karr innocent rather than guilty.(Remember, Karr was D.A. Lacy's baby; the BPD had no interest in proving Karr guilty."
The BPD doesn't have a DNA lab, and they never had custody of Karr's DNA. Tom Bennett took a buccal swab of Karr's DNA, subject to to court order, at Jeffco airport, and it was tested at the Denver Crime Lab, where the unsourced DNA also was found during testing there.
Candy, I will grant that you are correct in that the buccal swab was sent to the Denver lab for analysis. However, this does not alter the fact that Dr. LaBerge (Greggory S. LaBerge, Director, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Denver Police Department) did not conduct an appropriate analysis of the DNA on the swab submitted from Karr. According to CSI (who I'm sure you will dismiss as being unqualified to make such an assessment), for an accurate analysis -- especially when the comparison is to contaminated evidentiary DNA as was the DNA in the Ramsey case -- to be made, it would take at least a minimum of 4 days to satisfactorily analyze such DNA and make a comparison.

How would you explain how this one lab made such a quick analysis when it's well known that all over this country, DNA analyses take much longer than 1 day. This is absolutely unheard of, and I can't understand why it has not been questioned.

Also, I believe it's safe to say that the BPD and the DPD acted in unison when it came to assessing evidence in the case. So, if the BPD wanted to continue in their efforts to implicate Patsy in the crime, the DPD would do whatever they could to back up the objective of the BPD. And Steve Thomas was not the only officer in the BPD that held the opinion that Patsy was the perp.

A quick, hastily performed analysis on Karr's DNA probably would have been easy to pass as legitimate in view of where the testing was done.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Nov 11, 2009
 
Old South wrote:
<quoted text>
Candy, I will grant that you are correct in that the buccal swab was sent to the Denver lab for analysis. However, this does not alter the fact that Dr. LaBerge (Greggory S. LaBerge, Director, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Denver Police Department) did not conduct an appropriate analysis of the DNA on the swab submitted from Karr. According to CSI (who I'm sure you will dismiss as being unqualified to make such an assessment), for an accurate analysis -- especially when the comparison is to contaminated evidentiary DNA as was the DNA in the Ramsey case -- to be made, it would take at least a minimum of 4 days to satisfactorily analyze such DNA and make a comparison.
How would you explain how this one lab made such a quick analysis when it's well known that all over this country, DNA analyses take much longer than 1 day. This is absolutely unheard of, and I can't understand why it has not been questioned.
Also, I believe it's safe to say that the BPD and the DPD acted in unison when it came to assessing evidence in the case. So, if the BPD wanted to continue in their efforts to implicate Patsy in the crime, the DPD would do whatever they could to back up the objective of the BPD. And Steve Thomas was not the only officer in the BPD that held the opinion that Patsy was the perp.
A quick, hastily performed analysis on Karr's DNA probably would have been easy to pass as legitimate in view of where the testing was done.
No one has to take my word for it. They can look it up or call a lab and ask. But no, no way could the test be done properly and verified in that short amount of time.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Nov 11, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Quote: Candy, I will grant that you are correct in that the buccal swab was sent to the Denver lab for analysis. However, this does not alter the fact that Dr. LaBerge (Greggory S. LaBerge, Director, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Denver Police Department) did not conduct an appropriate analysis of the DNA on the swab submitted from Karr. According to CSI (who I'm sure you will dismiss as being unqualified to make such an assessment), for an accurate analysis -- especially when the comparison is to contaminated evidentiary DNA as was the DNA in the Ramsey case -- to be made, it would take at least a minimum of 4 days to satisfactorily analyze such DNA and make a comparison.

For Old South,

First of all, this CSI poster is a LYING FRAUD about DNA issues, and her alleged knowledge of them for this situation, for this case. Once I post the true answer, you'll see that immediately. This FRAUD surfs the net for answers, but you can't cut and paste being a DNA expert, it's like pretending to be a Neurosurgeon.

It DOES NOT take 4 days, NEVER use her info or calculations as she is A FRAUD. Her info was immediately BUSTED by REAL knowledgable experts, NOT HER. Here are two REAL answers about this situation:

1) "contrary to what you hear on TV, a clean buccal swab can be extracted and the DNA specimen genotyped within one day. In fact, if you were to add up the actual time involved in each phase of the overall procedure it would amount to only a fraction of that day. There is no surprise in typing an exemplar specimen relatively quickly. Exclusion of a DNA source also requires no statistical analysis. Of course, an evidentiary specimen requires more time.....paperwork takes a great deal of time to complete as well."

and 2 "The Denver lab is
likely set up for high throughput DNA processing, so they could get it
into the queue right away. Given it would have been a reference sample
(known blood or a buccal swab) and not from a crime scene, results in
2 days is quite possible.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Nov 11, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The time frame from Tom Bennett turning in Karr's buccal DNA swab to the Denver Crime Lab, to the Denver crime lab giving the DA's office was 36 HOURS. It was taken on Thursday, August 24th, and the DA's office received the results on Saturday, August 26th. On Monday, August 28th is when the DA's office officially dropped their case against John Mark Karr.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Nov 11, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

candy wrote:
Quote: Candy, I will grant that you are correct in that the buccal swab was sent to the Denver lab for analysis. However, this does not alter the fact that Dr. LaBerge (Greggory S. LaBerge, Director, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Denver Police Department) did not conduct an appropriate analysis of the DNA on the swab submitted from Karr. According to CSI (who I'm sure you will dismiss as being unqualified to make such an assessment), for an accurate analysis -- especially when the comparison is to contaminated evidentiary DNA as was the DNA in the Ramsey case -- to be made, it would take at least a minimum of 4 days to satisfactorily analyze such DNA and make a comparison.
For Old South,
First of all, this CSI poster is a LYING FRAUD about DNA issues, and her alleged knowledge of them for this situation, for this case. Once I post the true answer, you'll see that immediately. This FRAUD surfs the net for answers, but you can't cut and paste being a DNA expert, it's like pretending to be a Neurosurgeon.
It DOES NOT take 4 days, NEVER use her info or calculations as she is A FRAUD. Her info was immediately BUSTED by REAL knowledgable experts, NOT HER. Here are two REAL answers about this situation:
1) "contrary to what you hear on TV, a clean buccal swab can be extracted and the DNA specimen genotyped within one day. In fact, if you were to add up the actual time involved in each phase of the overall procedure it would amount to only a fraction of that day. There is no surprise in typing an exemplar specimen relatively quickly. Exclusion of a DNA source also requires no statistical analysis. Of course, an evidentiary specimen requires more time.....paperwork takes a great deal of time to complete as well."
and 2 "The Denver lab is
likely set up for high throughput DNA processing, so they could get it
into the queue right away. Given it would have been a reference sample
(known blood or a buccal swab) and not from a crime scene, results in
2 days is quite possible.
You're going to HAVE to let the Steve Thomas thing go some day.

Candy's a file clerk, Old South, who doesn't have the slightest bit of knowledge regarding DNA and she's got a vendetta against anyone who's friends with Steve Thomas. To get an ACCURATE test result, it would take a minimum of three to four days. No way could it be done in 24 hours.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Nov 11, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Oh, please check out what I said against this information that this LYING FRAUD has peddled on the DNA. She is a COLOSSAL fraud. It's easy to BUST her, as AK noted in the very first post about this COLOSSAL fraud.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of81
|
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.

20 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Patsy's little helpers 31 min Fr_Brown 6
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... 4 hr candy 161
Smit try to climb back through the basement win... 16 hr Capricorn 12
Hair 22 hr Two 11
S.B.T.C: Weird coincidence? (Mar '10) Tue Bike club 48
Parents suspected of murder Jul 8 Just Wondering 31
John Mark Karr speaks about his Orchiectomy Sur... Jul 8 Biz 6
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••