Since: Jul 08

North Carolina

#43 Feb 13, 2009
I'm not sure it was Dr. Lee's conclusion. It may have been more of Dr. Lee's conclusion that the DNA could be an artifact.

But I sincerely doubt that artifact DNA from Vietnam also found its way to the waistband of the longjohns through transference from the underwear.

None of us can explain the DNA's meaning unless CODIS gets a hit. Then that could explain a great deal. Until then IDIs remain IDI and RDIs remain RDIs.
FoolsGold

Bonita Springs, FL

#44 Feb 13, 2009
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Dr. Lee's opinion that the foreign DNA was artifact, right?
No.
I would not be so quick to reject such significant evidence.

Since: Oct 08

Kamloops, Canada

#45 Feb 13, 2009
DNA transfer:
Some people shed more the others. The type of material handled, the way it is handled, the amount of time it is handled are all factors. How long has it been since hand washing, how often and where a person touches themselves – all of this and more plays a determining role in DNA transfer.

Secondary transfer is another matter. It has been demonstrated in laboratory conditions to varying degree. I am not aware of any instance where it has been established to have occurred in the Real World, however, I would think it reasonable to assume that it has and does occur.

While some studies have confirmed Secondary transfer under laboratory conditions, other studies have shown little to NO Secondary transfer. Some studies show different results on different days with the same individuals. There are no guarantees

If DNA transfer did occur as regularly and as easily as some seem to believe, that is, if we were indeed walking around with a “plethora” of DNA upon us, then, DNA as a forensic aid would be completely and utterly useless. Mixed, partials, sourced and un-sourced, degraded, contaminated and every combination imaginable would be the norm and results would be meaningless. Substrate for control would always reveal problematic results. Sperm, blood, etc would be routinely “commingled.” DNA would be useless for exclusion, for inclusion and for anything else.

So, whose DNA is in your panties? Probably just yours. Because Primary transfer does occur, as according to conditions as outlined above, but Secondary transfer does not always occur and when it does occur, it will do so only under certain, variable conditions.

AK

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Tran...

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modified_sec_t...

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/c...
FoolsGold

Bonita Springs, FL

#46 Feb 14, 2009
With all these allegations of playmates dna, other adults dna, laundry hamper dna, friend of a friends dna, etc., one wonders how ANY crime could be solved if garments seem to have all that dna on them?

It seems people don't like the conclusions to be drawn from the dna evidence and so therefore the dna evidence is criticized and downgraded until the results of the tests are meaningless rather than exculpatory.
Rashomon

Germany

#47 Feb 14, 2009
FoolsGold wrote:
<quoted text>No.
I would not be so quick to reject such significant evidence.
Dr.Lee must have had his reasons to conclude that this was not a DNA case.
jahazafat

Troy, ID

#48 Feb 14, 2009
FoolsGold wrote:
With all these allegations of playmates dna, other adults dna, laundry hamper dna, friend of a friends dna, etc., one wonders how ANY crime could be solved if garments seem to have all that dna on them?
If Mary Lacy's DNA beliefs and philosophies were followed in court most convicted criminals would be freed and few would ever be locked up again.

The courts have not caught up to the technology. Standards and baselines have to be established for what amount of miniscule unsourced dna is normal.
jahazafat

Troy, ID

#49 Feb 14, 2009
lucyd wrote:
None of us can explain the DNA's meaning unless CODIS gets a hit. Then that could explain a great deal. Until then IDIs remain IDI and RDIs remain RDIs.
It could be the original owner of the panties will or has come forward. This was a size twelve from a days of the week set with no others from the set found in the home. It wasn’t her underwear. Boulder spent considerable time testing Boulder girls who were friends of JonBenet but never ventured to Michigan or Atlanta. A size 12 would more likely be associated with a friend of Burke’s than JonBenet’s. Did they look at families of his pals too? The friends of JonBenet are now coming of age and may be willing to step up to the plate. What about the other girls from Michigan who went to NYC? Why were they never tested? What about step family members of Jenny Davis? Did her mother remarry? Did she have step brothers?

CODIS is not the only possible source for answers, as a matter of fact it is the least likely.

Since: Oct 08

Kamloops, Canada

#50 Feb 14, 2009
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr.Lee must have had his reasons to conclude that this was not a DNA case.
I’m pretty sure Lee has since changed his tune – anyway, back in the day, at the time, it wasn’t a DNA case simply because the “amount” of DNA was not compelling. Things changed when the second blood spot was tested, and, the change was strengthened with the discovery of the long john DNA.

Here’s an idea of what Lee has had to say in more recent times:
“But investigator Henry Lee,.. said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughter’s death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.”

‘Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents.‘They already cleared them,’ he said”.

“Now there are no potential suspects.”
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/f...

AK
Rashomon

Germany

#51 Feb 14, 2009
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m pretty sure Lee has since changed his tune – anyway, back in the day, at the time, it wasn’t a DNA case simply because the “amount” of DNA was not compelling. Things changed when the second blood spot was tested, and, the change was strengthened with the discovery of the long john DNA.
Here’s an idea of what Lee has had to say in more recent times:
“But investigator Henry Lee,.. said John and Patsy Ramsey already were cleared in their daughter’s death nearly a decade ago when a grand jury failed to find evidence to indict anyone.”
‘Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents.‘They already cleared them,’ he said”.
“Now there are no potential suspects.”
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/10/f...
AK

Not having enough evidence to arrest or indict a suspect doesn't mean the suspect has been cleared.

From the same article:
"Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death." (end quote)

The rope, yes indeed. Lacy's silence was deafening regarding "the rope" (= the nylon cord) wasn't it? Not one peep from her as to whether it was tested or not.
Hasn't she ever been asked this question in any press conference, or been publicly challenged in newspaper articles/TV shows etc. to answer this question?

Since: Oct 08

Kamloops, Canada

#52 Feb 14, 2009
Rashomon, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is that the Ramsey’s were cleared of suspicion. Live with it.

AK
Rashomon

Germany

#53 Feb 14, 2009
Anti-K wrote:
Rashomon, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is that the Ramsey’s were cleared of suspicion. Live with it.
AK
Cleared by Mary Lacy, yeah right.:D
But they may become 'uncleared' again, and be put back under the umbrella. Ever thought of that?

Since: Oct 08

Kamloops, Canada

#54 Feb 14, 2009
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>Cleared by Mary Lacy, yeah right.:D
But they may become 'uncleared' again, and be put back under the umbrella. Ever thought of that?
Of course I have – aint you been paying attention, or what.
The door is always left ajar, the list always reserves a spot – haven’t I said this already. Aint it the truth, isn’t this the way it must be? what if Mrs Ramseys DNA is on the garrote, eh? Wouldn’t that swing the door open a bit, make a move on the list? Of course it would.

Grab a brain, Rash, put your glasses on - not everyone is blind like you. Now, go away before I get mad.
Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

AK
Rashomon

Germany

#55 Feb 15, 2009
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I have – aint you been paying attention, or what.
The door is always left ajar, the list always reserves a spot – haven’t I said this already. Aint it the truth, isn’t this the way it must be? what if Mrs Ramseys DNA is on the garrote, eh? Wouldn’t that swing the door open a bit, make a move on the list? Of course it would.
Grab a brain, Rash, put your glasses on - not everyone is blind like you. Now, go away before I get mad.
Grrrrrrrrrrr!!
AK
No glasses needed to see through you, AK.:-)
By throwing tantrums, you will merely reveal yourself as an emotionally immature person.
Nelly

AOL

#56 Feb 15, 2009
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>Cleared by Mary Lacy, yeah right.:D
But they may become 'uncleared' again, and be put back under the umbrella. Ever thought of that?
LOL some people think the DA is judge and jury, too. Since when does a DA declare ANYONE innocent? This case was not for Lacy to decide anything, and anyone who just takes her word for things is every bit as stupid as she!
koldkase

Fort Benning, GA

#57 Feb 16, 2009
Beckner was asked specifically at the news conference where he and new DA Garnet talked about the "re-opening" of this case if the Ramseys are suspects again.

Beckner said they're starting at "square one" again with the new panel of experts. The implication was clear, since Beckner refused to say the Ramseys are "exonerated" or "cleared": they're back on the table as suspects.
mBm

AOL

#58 Feb 16, 2009
Rashomon wrote:
<quoted text>
<snip>
The rope, yes indeed. Lacy's silence was deafening regarding "the rope" (= the nylon cord) wasn't it? Not one peep from her as to whether it was tested or not.
Hasn't she ever been asked this question in any press conference, or been publicly challenged in newspaper articles/TV shows etc. to answer this question?
I challenge any MEDIA person to ask Garrett this question when/if he ever holds another news conference. An additional challenge would be whether the paintbrush handle has been tested.
koldkase

Fort Benning, GA

#59 Feb 16, 2009
Unfortunately, if anyone did have a chance to ask Lacy the question about the garrote cord being tested for touch DNA, she'd say, "I don't comment on this case." She and her lawyers always said that when asked questions they don't want to answer. That never stopped them FROM commenting when THEY wanted to comment, I noticed.

This is what makes me angry about this whole investigation. I don't understand how the DA can continue to write letters and allow evidence to be discussed by the Bode Tech lab in the media, but the REST of it, the public is not allowed to know. That's propaganda, pure and simple. It HAS to be unconstitutional.

But as we've learned, the DA in Boulder can do anything he/she chooses. The law is what they make it there.

Since: Oct 08

Kamloops, Canada

#60 Feb 16, 2009
Nelly wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL some people think the DA is judge and jury, too. Since when does a DA declare ANYONE innocent? This case was not for Lacy to decide anything, and anyone who just takes her word for things is every bit as stupid as she!
No reasonable person “thinks” that the D.A. is “judge and jury.” The D.A. did not declare anyone innocent. The D.A. did not declare them “not guilty.’ The D.A. exonerated them from SUSPICION.
There was no trial, so, no the D.A. did not act as judge and jury. And, YES, the District Attorney does have the power to decide the merits of a case, the office has the power to investigate and to prosecute, and, it certainly has the power to clear or exonerate a person fro SUSPICION.

Anyone who thinks that Lacey made this decision without the right, without any of the facts, without knowing the evidence, without consultation and consideration, etc is every bit as stupid as they believe Lacey to be – minimum.

AK

Since: Oct 08

Kamloops, Canada

#61 Feb 16, 2009
Obviously, Lacey believes that this family was done a gross injustice:
It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templat...

AK
FoolsGold

Bonita Springs, FL

#62 Feb 17, 2009
Anti-K wrote:
Obviously, Lacey believes that this family was done a gross injustice:
Well, what would you call it if the Mayor goes on TV to say "Nah, there ain't no killer stalkin' da streets, its dem parents dat done it"? What would you say qualifies as a 'gross injustice' if the police refusing to investigate the case in any fashion other than parental responsibility doesn't qualify as a gross injustice?

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
Martha Moxley 1 hr Legal__Eagle 91
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 15 hr JTF 7,512
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 18 hr ICU2 64
6/23/98 Interview Transcript 22 hr Legal__Eagle 25
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) Sun robert 1,649
Christina Masewicz Outed As a FRAUD in the Jeff... (Nov '10) Sat Dennis worley 37
Jonbenet Ramsey murderer Sat Justice1313 223
More from around the web