Justice Watch Support JW "FAULTY RESONING PART 3" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... FAULTY RESONING PART 3, ayelean, 08:06:22, 5/23/2001 faulty reasoning, austingirl, 08:15:54, 5/23/2001, (#1) Appearances, Bobby, 08:42:22, 5/23/2001, (#2) There are undercurrents, Watching you, 08:53:37, 5/23/2001, (#4) One thing is clear, fly, 08:47:54, 5/23/2001, (#3) Now Fly...., Voyager, 09:11:28, 5/23/2001, (#5) I have contact, Watching you, 09:17:49, 5/23/2001, (#6) Imagine that the, Watching you, 09:29:16, 5/23/2001, (#7) Bobby, WY, austingirl, 09:38:01, 5/23/2001, (#9) "Almost everything in, Watching you, 09:35:39, 5/23/2001, (#8) Time for a cold shower, Watching you, 09:40:53, 5/23/2001, (#10) "The genome is as comlicated, Watching you, 09:49:57, 5/23/2001, (#11) Thank you, WY, vic, 10:07:06, 5/23/2001, (#14) Vic, Watching you, 10:14:20, 5/23/2001, (#15) From Second Thread, Ginja, 10:00:35, 5/23/2001, (#13) The problem I, Watching you, 09:59:40, 5/23/2001, (#12) WY, Jellyjaws, 10:17:31, 5/23/2001, (#16) Speaking of DNA . . ., emerckx, 11:12:28, 5/23/2001, (#26) If I remember correctly, Watching you, 10:27:08, 5/23/2001, (#17) And this site, Watching you, 10:35:34, 5/23/2001, (#18) Anyone know the answer?, vic, 10:45:36, 5/23/2001, (#20) And yet another, Watching you, 10:43:21, 5/23/2001, (#19) WY, fly, 10:46:02, 5/23/2001, (#21) This site looks, Watching you, 10:50:37, 5/23/2001, (#22) From site listed by Fly:, Watching you, 10:52:09, 5/23/2001, (#23) PCR contamination:, Watching you, 10:54:25, 5/23/2001, (#24) So, you know what, Watching you, 11:00:40, 5/23/2001, (#25) Whoops!, emerckx, 11:16:08, 5/23/2001, (#27) Hmmmm, Ginja, 12:00:21, 5/23/2001, (#30) Emerckx, fly, WY, Jellyjaws, 11:46:04, 5/23/2001, (#29) Give credit to Fly, Watching you, 11:44:51, 5/23/2001, (#28) Ginja, Watching you, 12:21:54, 5/23/2001, (#31) Thanks, WY, for the reminder., emerckx, 12:41:05, 5/23/2001, (#32) Ginja, WY, Ribaldone, 13:16:36, 5/23/2001, (#33) Fly, Nedthan Johns, 15:43:06, 5/23/2001, (#34) Ned, fly, 16:43:13, 5/23/2001, (#35) Fly, austingirl, 17:08:25, 5/23/2001, (#37) thanks for the dna class, purrplepassion, 17:07:41, 5/23/2001, (#36) Fly, Nedthan Johns, 17:25:20, 5/23/2001, (#38) Purplepassion, Nedthan Johns, 17:27:21, 5/23/2001, (#39) purplepassion, austingirl, 17:33:47, 5/23/2001, (#40) Austin Girl, Nedthan Johns, 18:14:27, 5/23/2001, (#41) Nedd, LurkerXIV, 18:26:15, 5/23/2001, (#42) Nedd, austingirl, 18:32:57, 5/23/2001, (#43) Sheesh why bother, JR, 19:18:13, 5/23/2001, (#44) Too whom it may concern, Rebecca, 19:35:46, 5/23/2001, (#45) Thank you Rebecca!, ayelean, 20:02:05, 5/23/2001, (#47) JR, austingirl, 20:01:01, 5/23/2001, (#46) Austingirl, JR, 20:06:02, 5/23/2001, (#48) raises hand, v_p, 20:36:09, 5/23/2001, (#50) Nedd - DNA Evidence, JR, 20:22:38, 5/23/2001, (#49) Rebecca, Watching you, 04:02:35, 5/24/2001, (#51) Oh, and if I may, just one, Watching you, 04:42:41, 5/24/2001, (#52) with all due respect, Hence4th, 09:47:49, 5/24/2001, (#53) I understand that, , Watching you, 09:49:09, 5/24/2001, (#54) I have this eerie feeling, Hence4th, 09:52:14, 5/24/2001, (#55) Never a dull moment!, Ginja, 12:02:26, 5/24/2001, (#56) Ginja, Watching you, 12:32:29, 5/24/2001, (#57) Misinformed?, mary99, 15:03:38, 5/24/2001, (#60) Human Cloning, JR, 14:39:18, 5/24/2001, (#58) Something to chew on, Ginja, 14:53:40, 5/24/2001, (#59) This much I know, Watching you, 15:39:07, 5/24/2001, (#62) DNA Sources, JR, 15:37:47, 5/24/2001, (#61) Questions, Hence4th, 16:52:31, 5/24/2001, (#63) Missing paint brush tip, v_p, 18:32:22, 5/24/2001, (#64) ayelean, ayelean, 19:05:48, 5/24/2001, (#66) whittled, Hence4th, 19:00:15, 5/24/2001, (#65) thanks, v_p, 19:07:46, 5/24/2001, (#67) length, Hence4th, 19:13:02, 5/24/2001, (#68) ayelean: your post #66, Hence4th, 19:16:13, 5/24/2001, (#70) Pineapple juice, Watching you, 19:15:52, 5/24/2001, (#69) snip, Hence4th, 19:18:21, 5/24/2001, (#71) When did Thomas, Watching you, 19:21:39, 5/24/2001, (#72) it's in JonBenet, Hence4th, 19:30:02, 5/24/2001, (#73) male DNA, Hence4th, 19:45:28, 5/24/2001, (#76) Male DNA?, JR, 19:33:45, 5/24/2001, (#74) Lets start a new thread, ayelean, 19:36:57, 5/24/2001, (#75) ................................................................... "FAULTY RESONING PART 3" Posted by ayelean on 08:06:22 5/23/2001 'pullman', er, I meant 'carry on' [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "faulty reasoning" Posted by austingirl on 08:15:54 5/23/2001 Was this thread - faulty reasoning - named in honor of tag-team Nedd? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Appearances" Posted by Bobby on 08:42:22 5/23/2001 From the sidelines my gut feeling is that TEAM RAMSEY is getting more nervous and has begun a genuine attack on this Forum to drive out good posters(WY) is a target as well as others. JMO but Ned seems to be more nasty than usual in order to provoke people. Who else do the RST have badgering this group of honest caring sleuths? Money is no object. It has all been moved off shore. They want their reputations back for any price. IMO too many hardworking bright people have put time and effort into finding the truth. Panico, Babe, Ruthee and others would want JW to hang together. Please look beyond these petty problems and scroll past the known "plants". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "There are undercurrents" Posted by Watching you on 08:53:37 5/23/2001 abounding here, Bobby, coming from more than one quarter, BTW. I'm not stupid. I know what's going on. When someone starts writing degrading posts about my worth as a mother, my children, mt worth as a person, and my integrity, I know what that's all about - I've demanded sources and backed them into a wall. Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me, though, haha. The clincher for me was the accusation that I am a threat to the Ramseys (when I didn't mention the Ramseys at all in my posts that I can remember) and that the Ramseys should "slap a restraining order on me." That's when I knew for sure who was wearing the Ned hat - at least part of the time. I will pick and choose my times to post, and no one will chase me away. If I leave, it will be on my own terms or because of something I myself did. I will not be intimidated by jerks, no matter what hats they are wearing. I pretty much know who's pulling on my chain, even if they think they are hidden. I will continue to state my opinion, and I don't care, never cared, and never will care who doesn't like it. You're not getting any cherry, have at it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "One thing is clear" Posted by fly on 08:47:54 5/23/2001 One thing is clear: Ned has grossly overstated his/her knowledge about science and DNA in particular. A lot of people here have a better understanding of the basics than s/he does. It's pretty sad when somebody who sets themself up as well-informed (with a degree in Science, no less!) and turns out not to know about the basics of mitochondrial DNA or the difference in cloning and DNA replication for testing purposes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Now Fly...." Posted by Voyager on 09:11:28 5/23/2001 I'm surprised that you overlooked the possibility that one of the Ned "hands" may have a science degree....one may be a distinguished investigator, and another even a worm farmer, for all we know! :) Hi Bobby, nice to see you posting, and Starry certainly is a Queen...she is my idol and she knows it! If she moves to Indiana, I am going to go and visit her and Sparky and be Sparkles wedding consultant if she lets me.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I have contact" Posted by Watching you on 09:17:49 5/23/2001 with several experts in the DNA field, but I work for only one. The others are in another building and my boss is their boss, also. He teaches microbiology and human genetics. I have just spent five minutes in his office looking at some of the myriad books he has on this subject. It may take me a while, but I am going to try to find one that I can understand that may answer some of our questions regarding DNA. I could ask him, but he's busy most of the time and he's playing golf this afternoon, haha. Right now he is in a meeting. I will ask him, though, which book might be the best for me - maybe genetics 101 or something. My understanding of DNA is so basic, but I try to at least get the those basic right. I have found some fascinating things. The human body contains approx 100 trillion (million million million) cells, most of which are less than a tenth of a millimetre across. Inside each cell there is a black blob balled a nucleus. Inside the nucleus are two complete sets of the human genome (except in egg cells and sperm cells, which have one copy each, and red blood cells, which have none). One set of the genome came from the mother and one from the father. In principle, each set includes the same 30,000 - 80,000 genes, on the same 23 chromosomes. In practice, there are often small and subtle differences between the paternal and maternal versions of each gene, differences that account for blue eyes or brown, for example. When we breed, we pass on one complete set, but only after swapping bits of the paternal and maternal chromosomes in a procedures know as recombination. Imagine that the genome is a book. See next post. I hate long posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Imagine that the" Posted by Watching you on 09:29:16 5/23/2001 genome is a book. (Before I go any further, these words of wisdom are coming from a book, GENOME, by Matt Ridley. It is available at book stores, I would think, and was copyrighted by the author, Matt Ridley, in 1999.) Back to the book: "There are 23 chapters, called CHROMOSOMES. Each chapter contains several thousand stories, called GENES. Each story is made up of paragraphs, called EXONS which are interrupted by advertisements called INTRONS. Each paragraph is made up of words, called CODONS. Each word is written letters called BASES. There are one billion words in the book...If I read the genome out to you at the rate of one word per second for eight hours a day, it would take me a century....a gingantic document, an immense book, ...and it all fits inside the microscopic nucleus of a tiny cell that fits easily upon the head of a pin. The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true." (skipping around here) on REPLICATION: "The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions, it can both photocopy itself and read itself. The photocopying is known as REPLICATION, and the reading as TRANSLATION. " (This is the cell's own replication, probably what Ned was referring to) DNA can replicate indefintely, yet still contain the same infomration. I suspect this is like in the reproduction of body cells - off with the old, on with the new sort of thing. Skin is one example. I think I am understanding this correctly. "Translation is a little more complicated First the text of a gene is transcribed into a copy by the same base pairing process, but this time the copy is made not of DNA for of RNA, a very slightly different chemical." Getting in way over my head here. Let me move on... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Bobby, WY" Posted by austingirl on 09:38:01 5/23/2001 Bobby, I have resolved many times to just scroll on past 2 posters in particular. Occasionally my resolve fails. But you are right - they should be ignored. I don't think they will be successful in driving out those who seek JfJBR. WY, thank you for the tutorial on DNA. I will keep checking back for the next exciting installment. LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. ""Almost everything in" Posted by Watching you on 09:35:39 5/23/2001 the body, from hair to hormones, is either made of proteins or made by them. Every protein is a translated gene. In particular, the body's chemical reactions are catalysed byproteins known as ENZYMES...Proteins are also responsible for switching genes on and off, by physically attaching themselve to PROMOTER and ENHANCER sequences near the start of a gene's text. Different genes are switched on in different parts of the body. When genes are replicated, mistakes are sometimes made. A letter (base) isoccasionally missed out or the wrong letter inserted. Whole sentences or paragraphs are sometimes duplicated, omitted, or reversed. This is known as MUTATION. ...Not all human genes are found on the 23 principal chromosomes; a few live inside little blobs called mitochondria and have probably done so ever since mitochondria were free-living bacteria. Not all genes are made of DNA: some viruses use RNA instead....And finally, not all DNA spells out genes. Most of it is a jumble of repetitive or random sequences that is rarely or never transcribed: the so-called junk DNA." This is quite a good book. I don't understand much of it, but I understand the basics of this. Let me see now if I can find reference to lab testing in crimes and such. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Time for a cold shower" Posted by Watching you on 09:40:53 5/23/2001 "Reader, the author of this book has beenmisleadinig you....A gene is just a sentence of prose written in a very simple language, he says, preening himself at the metaphor. Such a simple gene on chromosome 3 is the cause, when broken of alkaptonuria. Another gene on chromosome 4 is the cause, when elongated, of Huntington's chorea. You either have mutations, in which case you get these genetic diseases, or you don't. No need for waffle, statistics or fudge. It is a digital world, this genetics stuff, all particulate inheritance. Your peas are either wrinkled or they are smooth. YOU HAVE BEEN MISLED. The world is not like that. It is a world of greys, of nuances, of qualifiers, of "it depends." Mendelian genetics is no more relevant to understanding heredity in the real world than Euclidean geometry is to understanding the shape of an oak tree. Holy Schmoly. You should buy this book. You might need half a brain to understand it, though, haha. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. ""The genome is as comlicated" Posted by Watching you on 09:49:57 5/23/2001 and indeterminate as ordinary life, because it is ordinary life. This should come as a relief. Simple determininism, whether of the genetic or environmental kind, is a depressing prospect for those with a fondness for free will..." Interesting tidbit on personality: "...On the short arm of chromosome 11, there lies a gene called D4DR. It is the recipe for a protein called a dopamine receptor, and it is switched onin cells of certain parts of the brain but not in others. ... "...to simplify grossly, dopamine isperhaps the brain's motivation chemical. Too little and the person lacks intiative and motivation. Too much and the person is easily bored and frequently seeks new adventures. Her perhaps lies the root of a difference in personality..." Not important to our research on DNA in this instance, but interesting nonetheless. Okay, I like this book. I intend to read it all the way through. But, it isn't telling me what I need to know about lab work with DNA. I shall continue to look. Carrion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Thank you, WY" Posted by vic on 10:07:06 5/23/2001 For your "book report" on DNA. It is so amazing, isn't it, how we can be so complex and yet (when explained so clearly) so simple. I know a few people who have that dopamine problem - too bad I can't fix it with my shiny new knowledge! I will be waiting for more chapters with bated breath! Sometimes you just gotta have Cliff notes! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Vic" Posted by Watching you on 10:14:20 5/23/2001 there are tons of things in this particular book that would probably interest posters, but they really aren't pertinent to the discussion here. I could give a rundown on each chapter, but I suspect many wouldn't appreciate my hogging the bandwidth to do it, LOL. I'm still trying to get info on the actual testing procedures. My boss is at meeting. I'll try to remember to ask him which book can tell me about that - something we all can understand, please, haha. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "From Second Thread" Posted by Ginja on 10:00:35 5/23/2001 88. "Thank you JR and Texan!" Posted by Ginja on 08:43:58 5/23/2001 Cloning! Can you believe it? LOLOL Thanks for the excellent description of PCR, JR. You spelled it out in terms Ned might understand! LOLOL As regards the "amount" of the samples...I think you've brought out that they can multiply the samples easily. But as Fly noted, quantity may not be the issue, but rather, quality. Clearly, these samples were minute and mixed in with other matter. That matter isn't just dna material. Under the nails, there's no telling how much "dirt" and unknown 'artifact' is mixed up. Likewise, PCR can only replicate what's there, to my knowledge. IOW, it can't "fill in the blanks". So if they didn't have a full dna strand to begin with, they're not going to get a full strand when they utilize PCR. And to you, Texan...thank you for pointing out that nail clippings are not taken from every single cadaver brought into the morgue. The purpose of the autopsy is to determine cause of death. Obviously, someone who dies of natural causes or heart failure or disease -- analyzing the matter under their fingernails will lend absolutely nothing to the coroner's findings. The nail clippings are done as part of the evidence collection in unnatural deaths. ***** I'd also like to add a humongus thank you to WY who'll make DNA experts of everyone of us (except probably Ned!) ;-) Thanks guys! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "The problem I" Posted by Watching you on 09:59:40 5/23/2001 seem to be having here is that all involvement here is toward diseases - viruses, bacteria, DNA associated with, etc. DNA is DNA, obviously, but the books I am finding are basically all geared toward the DNA of viruses and bacteria, diseases, and such, not criminology. The man-created replication in laboratories of DNA is like primer material to these experts here, but that's part of what I am looking for. I am also trying to find reference to samples used for testing, but there again I'm running into problems because of the disease vs criminology thing. This may take some time. I may have to tap a few brains around here. Be patient. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "WY" Posted by Jellyjaws on 10:17:31 5/23/2001 Take as long as you want, WY. This is facinating material and we all need to learn what we can about DNA. I just started a book, "The Cuckold's Egg," by Clifford Stoll about the tracking of an international hacker who first stuck his nose up, so to speak, at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab in the 1980's. It's just excellent, easy to read and a nifty mystery story. When I took a break from the book to drop by, I find you giving us a DNA tutorial. Wow, it doesn't get any better! Thank you for your hard work, WY. It's appreciated. Back to my book and, oh, the title comes from the fact that the cuckoo lays its egg in another bird's nest for the foster mother to incubate and raise with her own clutch. Good book. BBL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Speaking of DNA . . ." Posted by emerckx on 11:12:28 5/23/2001 Watching You, thank you for researching this subject (DNA). I, myself, have always found it fascinating. Okay, this is a long one. Here's an interesting link for those wanting to know a bit more about forensic DNA testing: http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html I don't know if the above site has been referenced before or if you guys have discussed RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis) or PCR (polymerase chain reaction testing) at length, so forgive me if this information is redundant. I just got finished reading this essay, and, for those of you who don't feel like bothering to read it, the following is a summarization of the information contained therein (oh, and please don't tell me--I know I am plagiarizing a bit--I can't be sued for that can I? :-) Or can I?): RFLP analysis requires larger amounts of undegraded DNA for testing (thus, old evidence or evidence present only in minute amounts should not be subjected to such analysis). PCR, on the other hand, can use less DNA and/or DNA that is partially degraded. However, because the PCR tests are so sensitive, it is highly possible that contamination of the sample may occur, either at the crime scene or the lab. RFLP Testing Steps: 1. Crime scene evidence is mixed with an enzyme that causes the DNA in the evidence to break into particular short sequences of DNA that happen to occur many times within a specific cell's DNA. Many cells from the crime scene are needed for this to work. 2. These DNA fragments are separated by size on a gel slab that is subjected to an electric current. 3. A copy (called a "blot") of the DNA on the gel is made and mixed with a special preparation of DNA (called a "probe") that recognizes a specific DNA sequence. The blot is then laid onto X-ray film; as the probe is radioactive, it exposes the film and produces dark bands on the film. 4. The band sizes on the exposed film (now known as an "autorad") are then measured and compared with band sizes of DNA fragments of known sizes. A match is made when two samples have band sizes that are all within 5% of each other. PCR Testing: First, it is important to note that PCR is not a DNA-typing mechanism. It basically functions to increase the sample size so that further testing may be completed on the sample. There are several different methods for accomplishing DNA typing after PCR has been conducted, such as DQA1 (DQ alpha) testing. Additionally, PCR is a very fast process--one molecule of DNA can become millions or billions within a few hours. Further, although there are control measures for preventing contamination, these measures are not always successful. I am not going to elaborate on the DQ alpha test unless someone really begs me to do it (it's long and complicated)! So, let's see, how would this information relate to JfJBR? The following sentences are my humble opinion from reading this essay: If the DNA under her nails/underwear was really degraded, one obviously wouldn't choose to conduct RFLP--or at least, not right off the bat. One would most likely choose to conduct some PCR, then follow up with typing. How I wish I could be a real, not armchair, forensic examiner/scientist/analyst! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "If I remember correctly" Posted by Watching you on 10:27:08 5/23/2001 Fly had an excellent site on DNA once. Do you still have that, Fly? Here is a site that could possibly answer some if not all of our questions: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/Reports/dnaframe.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "And this site" Posted by Watching you on 10:35:34 5/23/2001 looks great: http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/primer/intro.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Anyone know the answer?" Posted by vic on 10:45:36 5/23/2001 Apparently the DNA under JB's fingernails and panties match. But they also would have taken vaginal swabs and tested it for DNA. I don't remember hearing anything about results for vaginal DNA, does anyone else know? And if the results from the vaginal swab don't match the panties and fingernails, does that mean the panty and fingernails were from contamination from JB herself, not the perp? A step further then, if the vaginal swab was only JB's DNA then there was no perp? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "And yet another" Posted by Watching you on 10:43:21 5/23/2001 this ought to keep y'all out of mischief for a while. http://vector.cshl.org/dnaftb/ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "WY" Posted by fly on 10:46:02 5/23/2001 No, I don't keep that sort of stuff (until the 10th time or so I've had to look it up). Here's a site that also looks decent that is specifically on DNA testing procedures: http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "This site looks" Posted by Watching you on 10:50:37 5/23/2001 better than the ones I found, Fly. Thanks. I'm going to read. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "From site listed by Fly:" Posted by Watching you on 10:52:09 5/23/2001 FORENSIC DNA TESTING Currently, there are two main types of forensic DNA testing. They are RFLP analysis and PCR-based analysis. Generally, RFLP analysis requires larger amounts of DNA and the DNA must be undegraded. Crime-scene evidence that is old or that is present in small amounts is often unsuitable for RFLP testing. Warm moist conditions may accelerate DNA degradation rendering it unsuitable for RFLP in a relatively short period of time. PCR testing often requires less DNA than RFLP testing and the DNA may be partially degraded, more so than is the case with RFLP. However, PCR still has sample size and degradation limitations. PCR tests are extremely sensitive to contaminating DNA at the crime scene and within the test laboratory. During PCR, contaminants may be amplified up to a billion times their original concentration. Contamination can influence PCR results, particularly in the absence of proper handling techniques and proper controls for contamination. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "PCR contamination:" Posted by Watching you on 10:56:19 5/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:56:19, 5/23/2001 PCR Contamination PCR copies DNA efficiently if the initial DNA is in good condition. A single DNA entity (molecule) can become millions or billions of DNA molecules in about three hours. In this way, PCR is similar to what happens when a clinical infection occurs. Clinicians have known for many years that a single germ (bacterial cell or virus) contaminating a wound can produce a massive infection if untreated. Similarly, a DNA molecule can contaminate (infect) a PCR and become a significant problem. The ability of small amounts of DNA to produce false and misleading results is well known within the research community. This is an excellent site - I recommend it above the ones I posted. The others can be used, I suppose, for when you get bored next time, haha. Much information there - too much to copy and post here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "So, you know what" Posted by Watching you on 11:06:41 5/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:06:41, 5/23/2001 my first reaction is? I read warm, damp places - like the crotch of JB's underwear where there is blood and urine. This is where the panty DNA came from. RFLP is apparently not the test they would use on this type of DNA because DNA in those conditions degrades rapidly. Therefore, they likely would use the PCR test. But, look at the problems inherent with using PCR test. PCR tests are extremely sensitive to contamination from crime scene or labs. These technicians were up against some pretty stiff odds, I think. No wonder they have been having so many problems trying to sort things out. Post Edit: Still thinking here, warm, damp places, but now that I think about it more, that would only apply for a short while, I think, since the basement was not heated, and JB's body would have cooled significantly. That may have at least stemmed the degradation problem. Then again, once her body was brought back into the warmth of the home, covered with a blanket and jacket, and left there for hours before the coronor arrived and the transporters took her body away, the conditions for degradation were back in place. I think there is a very good case for degradation of that panty DNA. And contamination. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Whoops!" Posted by emerckx on 11:16:08 5/23/2001 Seems like we were thinking the same thing at the same time, WY (See Post #26)! Great minds think alike, no? LOL Sorry, again, for the redundancy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Hmmmm" Posted by Ginja on 12:00:21 5/23/2001 Vic brought up an interesting thought. What of the vaginal mucosa? Well...they found plenty in it, from birefringent material to chronic interstitial inflammation. The vaginal injuries suffered involved more than a stick being inserted (that is, if a stick was ever inserted. The fact that there was a wood sliver found doesn't necessarily mean insertion; it could very well have been transferred by the perp's hand). So query how the perp used fingers to molest this child without leaving any of his dna behind inside the vagina, yet managed to leave a minute dna sample inside her panties, especially if the wood sliver was transferred by the same hand. I remember, as many of you do, that way back when...I mean a few years at least...Carol McKinley -- who obviously seems to have some very good sources -- stated practically emphatically that the dna material under the nails was old and cracked. Couple that with what WY points out in the panties being a breeding ground for contamination and what are we left with? It seems to me this so-called 'evidence' was degraded and contaminated and probably present under the nails prior to the crime. As far as the panty material, my money is on transferrance. The techs started out with bad samples and I don't think any amount of PCR or other testing is going to be able to reconstruct and/or identify these samples. What I do think is becoming quite evident is that whatever it is, it isn't a result of the murder nor is it crucial in determining whodunit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Emerckx, fly, WY" Posted by Jellyjaws on 11:46:04 5/23/2001 Thank you for the links and all your work. Lots of good reading here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Give credit to Fly" Posted by Watching you on 11:44:51 5/23/2001 for finding the same site you did. It's a great site. I don't know why my search engine didn't pick it up. Better research that, haha. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 12:21:54 5/23/2001 you yourself have just brought up a fantastic point, and I don't think you even realize it. It really makes me wonder now. If that wood sliver (was it a sliver or just a minute particle from the paint brush handle?) was transferred inside JB's vagina via a finger (now, this could be a flaking off of paint from the handle, too, remember, I don't know), it might lead one to believe that when the perp broke the paintbrush, it adhered to the glove s/he was wearing at the time. So what does this mean? What was the broken paint brush handled used for? The garotte, of course. I would almost think the garotte came first, then - the strangling came first, and the staging/sexual attack came afterward. How does this fit into the theories? Probably the perp didn't even realize the birefringement material was on the glove. Makes me wonder about the glove, too. Where had that glove been (there must have been gloves used - no fingerprints anywhere) prior to the perp's putting it on? What kind of DNA was already on the glove? Lots of questions. No answers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. " Thanks, WY, for the reminder." Posted by emerckx on 12:41:05 5/23/2001 Fly: You've got one of those great minds I was talking about! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Ginja, WY" Posted by Ribaldone on 13:16:36 5/23/2001 It's amazing how you guys (and other posters) can come up with these intelligent and insightful reasonings about the vaginal abuse, the birefringment material, etc. and a "seasoned" Fox who has investigated hundreds of cases is too blind and stupid to come to the same reasoned thoughts. Forget that he's had more than four years of "investigating" to put 2 + 2 together. You're both so right -- if the birefringment material came from the paintbrush (via direct or indirect transfer), it obviously happened AFTER the garrotte was made. Which means our ballsy perp decided to play sex games with a child in her own home with the whole fam damily sleeping upstairs. I guess he just planned to spend the whole damn night in that house. And since he forgot to bring the necessary instruments to fashion his weapon of sexual torture, what made him think the squeeky-clean, perfect Ramsey family would have such materials readily availble for him to use? Oh, I know. . .he must have decided to quickly fashion a garrotte and do his sexual torture thing at the last minute after spotting Patsy's paint supply tote. He probably thought to himself, "hey, I could make a nifty will garrotte with that there paint brush." Yeah, that's the ticket. Just goes to show how worthless Smit is as an investigator. My favorite so far is that a blue electrical impulse makes a blue mark on the skin. ROFLMAO. What a moron. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:43:06 5/23/2001 One thing is clear: Ned has grossly overstated his/her knowledge about science and DNA in particular. A lot of people here have a better understanding of the basics than s/he does. It's pretty sad when somebody who sets themself up as well-informed (with a degree in Science, no less!) and turns out not to know about the basics of mitochondrial DNA or the difference in cloning and DNA replication for testing purposes. Nedd: I am who I say I am and have never lied about my occupation nor my credentials. I have posted on the LKL forum for well over a year with Britt, before I came here. I was talking DNA over there for months. At the Biotech company I work for, we DO NOT do DNA testing, as I have adamently stated. I AM NOT a DNA expert. However I work with roughly 40+ Ph.D.'s in the field of Biology and Chemistry, who know much more then I do. We discuss this case almost daily. As for the replication article, that I believe JR posted, It is to my knowledge that in order to replicate DNA the amount needs to be plentiful and you need a good sample. I do not beleive this is the case here. The Dr.s that I consulted with here, did not know anything about replication of DNA for genetic testing. So this must be a realitively new process. Certainly this is an ever expanding field that one needs to be kept well informed of daily. All we know at this point is the DNA is MALE and it doesn't match the Ramsey's. Of COURSE Lee mentioned possible cross contaimination. BUT HOW LIKELY is that? It is the consensus where I work, not very likely. Most people here think the DNA is an important aspect of this crime. I share my thoughts with you all, because every day I consume myself with the case and more and more questions arise. I have the opportunity to discuss these facts with my colleagues who know more then I and I share them here with you all. Now you can take it or leave it. Again this is a site where anonymity is kept serect so we are never going to know who is who. I have no reason to lie, and have never changed who I am or why I am here from the past. Just ask Britt. I was an adament opposer of the Ramsey's years ago, I have now taken a different look at the case and with the help of some family friends found out information such as the DNA was from a male source months and months ago. I am now telling you that source in her panties is blood. ONe should NEVER have defend ones self. We are here to share out thoughts and our expertise. My expertise is in the field of Science. This is the primary reason I have changed stances on this case. You just DON'T get male DNA in 3 seperate places on a murdered 6 year old accidently or by cross contaimination. Not only that, but U have something more today. This is why Dr. Lee assumed IT MIGHT be by cross contaimination. The DNA found under her nails was from several of them, not just from 2 nails, and on both hands. But how does that explain the panty DNA, especially if it is blood, which is what I have been told? This is what I have been told is still being tested. The Blood DNA in the panties IMO rules out cross contaimination. This is WHY all this money is still being spent on DNA testing. This is the ONLY thing being tested upon at time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Ned" Posted by fly on 16:43:13 5/23/2001 Ned - You repeatedly mentioned your degree in Science, with the apparent intention to create the impression that you were better informed about DNA than most of the posters here. No, you never claimed to work in DNA, but you did put yourself forward as more informed than the average Joe. At least that is the very strong impression I got, and I am sure it is shared by many here. As to needing a lot of material for DNA replication, that is absolutely wrong. The whole point of replication for testing purposes is to increase the DNA so that you have enough DNA to test. PCR testing is useful because it can be used with very small original samples of biological material. It is the replication of the DNA that the PCR test includes prior to the actual testing that allows that. How likely it is that the DNA is due to transfer, contamination, or only direct deposit is another issue. And although we can discuss that in general terms, without knowing the details of the DNA data, there's no way to accurately evaluate which situation we're dealing with in the JBR case. There are signals in the public statements that suggest any of those could be the case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Fly" Posted by austingirl on 17:08:25 5/23/2001 Hasn't PRC, or replication for DNA testing been around for years? Why have "someone's" expert scientists never heard of it? Why does our resident scientist think it is relatively new? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "thanks for the dna class" Posted by purrplepassion on 17:07:41 5/23/2001 thanks for the dna class. i saved all the sites mentioned. and will read them later. even without the dna evidence, i there is lots of other evidence to prove that the ramseys are quilty. and i am new at this forum. however, i will read everything....even what ned says...he sounds sincere. and one thing i hate about any forum.....is people yelling at each other.......i can do without that......i believe in free speech. (however, jameson is a loony tune for sure!) the truth about this case will come from all this investigating... the truth is the truth.... i just want it solved. justice for jon benet! again, good job wy! thanks for your effort! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Fly" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:25:20 5/23/2001 Ned - You repeatedly mentioned your degree in Science, with the apparent intention to create the impression that you were better informed about DNA than most of the posters here. No, you never claimed to work in DNA, but you did put yourself forward as more informed than the average Joe. At least that is the very strong impression I got, and I am sure it is shared by many here. Nedd: Yes Fly, I believe I have a better understanding of DNA, do to my background. I certainly have better access to those who know a lot about it then most posters here, which is what I was trying to share here. As to needing a lot of material for DNA replication, that is absolutely wrong. The whole point of replication for testing purposes is to increase the DNA so that you have enough DNA to test. PCR testing is useful because it can be used with very small original samples of biological material. It is the replication of the DNA that the PCR test includes prior to the actual testing that allows that. How likely it is that the DNA is due to transfer, contamination, or only direct deposit is another issue. And although we can discuss that in general terms, without knowing the details of the DNA data, there's no way to accurately evaluate which situation we're dealing with in the JBR case. There are signals in the public statements that suggest any of those could be the case. Nedd: I agree with the above. I do not know about replication and those I discussed it with knew nothing about it, except what I shared regarding the amount and condition of the DNA. I just shared your above post with our Director of Biology. He stated again, that you must have a reasonable amount to test in the first place, as for DNA replication, this is something he knows little about, as this kind of testing must be very new. IN the past DNA was not replicated and because of contamination DNA samples are usually only tested once. The test is extremely effective he stated. Again we don't know the condition of the DNA. With what facts we do know, male foreign DNA under both sets of nails and in her panties, in his expert opinion does not get there accidentally, nor by secondary transfer. Since I value his opinion greatly, that's good enough for me, add it to what I know and the sources for where I gather my information Fly, and this DNA just doesn't add up to the Parents did it theory [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Purplepassion" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:27:21 5/23/2001 however, i will read everything....even what ned says...he sounds sincere. Nedd: Thank you Purplepassion. I try to be. I want justice for JBR just like MOST people here. I cannot handle those who are here just to spout off hatred towards these parents, when there is clearly evidence that points else where. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "purplepassion" Posted by austingirl on 17:33:47 5/23/2001 You might like to read posts 67 and 70 on faulty reasoning II. Then see if you think "someone" is sincere. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Austin Girl" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 18:14:27 5/23/2001 Try having him go back to Watching You's posts to see where it all begun while your at it :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Nedd" Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:26:15 5/23/2001 Whether or not you are a scientist, I wish you would learn a few simple html skills, like bold or italics, to differentiate your own words from the words of the poster you are responding to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Nedd" Posted by austingirl on 18:32:57 5/23/2001 What I see on thread 2 post #43 is you calling WY an ogre when all she did was ask you for your sources. You made the personal attacks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Sheesh why bother" Posted by JR on 19:18:13 5/23/2001 I do not know why I bother to post educational material for you Nedd because it is clear you never bother to read what I have posted nor follow the link and read the article provided. You just might learn something if you did. 1) The article I posted in regards to replication DNA was written in Oct. 1999 (NOTE: I posted thie date on my post Nedd) and hence, tells us DNA replication is NOT new! 2) Nedd you wrote: As for the replication article, that I believe JR posted, It is to my knowledge that in order to replicate DNA the amount needs to be plentiful and you need a good sample. Tahir chooses a test called DQA1. The test is named for the tiny segment of human DNA that it analyzes. The DQA1 test is designed to work with tiny quantities of DNA, but it isn't very discriminating. The test can identify only 8 different alleles in 42 possible combinations. Any one of those combinations is shared by millions of people. So the power of the test to pinpoint any one individual is limited, but with only degraded DNA in the samples, it's Tahir's best choice. His first step is to increase the quantity of DNA the test will have to work with. To do this, he places a portion of each crime-scene sample into a vial. Then he adds a chemical cocktail that stimulates the process of DNA replication. The samples are then placed into a thermal cycler, which speeds the process of replication through precise warming and cooling of the samples. Within hours, any DNA present in the original samples has replicated into millions of copies. All emphasis mine! Try reading Nedd. The DQA1 test is designed to work with tiny quantities of DNA which is degraded and replication is done through this "cocktail mix" to provide larger samples. NOVA #2613: The Killer's Trail Broadcast Transcript PBS Air date: October 19, 1999 Nedd you state, "My expertise is in the field of Science." Well I sure wish I had a scanner right about now Nedd because I would upload both my diplomas, the first of which is a B.S. Behavioral Science and the second of which is a B.S. in Bull Feces. And Nedd...I am 100% serious. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Too whom it may concern" Posted by Rebecca on 19:35:46 5/23/2001 Nedd states that he posted on LKL for over a year and discussed DNA.....I posted there also and don't recall him discussing DNA I recall he often let us know that he had friends that went to the same church as the Ramseys in Georgia so you see, he was closer to information about John and Patsy than the rest of us. Since coming to this forum, he is now very close to experts in the field of science. Oh and he holds some very disparaging feelings towards women in general that maybe he would share with the rest of you for a better understanding of how insincere he really is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Thank you Rebecca!" Posted by ayelean on 20:02:05 5/23/2001 Isn't that interesting? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "JR" Posted by austingirl on 20:01:01 5/23/2001 I'm LMAO at Nedd's expert scientists who never heard of replication or knew under what circumstances it's used. So much for our resident scientist and all the brilliant scientists he works with. And I don't want to dash your hopes (sarcasm) but he won't read your informative post above. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Austingirl" Posted by JR on 20:06:02 5/23/2001 Oh - I know it won't be read. But at least the information is out there. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "raises hand" Posted by v_p on 20:36:09 5/23/2001 >>police tactic used to empliment John Ramsey<< ??? What are the police trying to do to John Ramsey? ~*~**~~*~* BTW Ned, find someone else to throw insipid barbs at, WY will crush you like the little nat you are... lol. I think you must be one of the in-crowd though ... not getting banned for calling names pretty much proves it. I'd say you should just admit your true identity, but then that would jeopardize your coward status. Oh, and the reason you never saw, (or "heard" as you put it), mame post about the flesh under the nails is because you could care less about the NK threads... you know they are meaningless ... you only frequent the threads which strike a ramsey nerve ... that's how I know when we're "hot." Love, V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Nedd - DNA Evidence" Posted by JR on 20:31:10 5/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:31:10, 5/23/2001 IRMI P124;pp2 ...and that DNA had been found in the panties and beneath the fingernails. We pointed out that the DNA could be totally unrelated to the case, since no skin or blood was found beneath the nails to indictae JonBenet had scratched her killer. Note - does not say male DNA and does not say blood DNA. Edited to add: IRMI P137;pp2 Steve is speaking of Nedra's Q and A The grandmother alsomentioned two occasions when the little girl had gone to play with her best friend Daphne White, and had come home with Fleet White carrying her soiled undeware, saying that JonBenet had had an accident and was wearing a pair of Daphne's panties. That made me think of another alternative to the foreign DNA found in her clothing. One would hope the White's were all tested against the foreign DNA. However, how many other children did JonBenet spend time with and end up wearing their panties home? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Rebecca" Posted by Watching you on 04:03:32 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:03:32, 5/24/2001 ah, it is as I thought, then, Nedthing despises women and thinks by degrading them he somehow makes himself look bigger. He only degrades himself, though. I say "he," but I really don't know what kind of a morph it is. Anyways, what I really wanted to say is I can hardly believe what I am reading. PCR 101 - Good Lawd, I thought everyone had that course during the Simpson trial in 1994 (that's 1994). In case anyone didn't get is, that's 1994,4,4,4,4,4. They did PCR testing, replication of DNA for testing, in 1994. It seems as if Ned has done an excellent job of totally discrediting himself here, and I didn't have to do a darn thing except sit back and watch, LOL. High five to everyone who blew ned out of the water here. You did good, and I'm proud of you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Oh, and if I may, just one" Posted by Watching you on 04:42:41 5/24/2001 more itsy bitsy thing? Just to clear up another little nedfallacy: 60. "Darby" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:49:11 5/22/2001 Isn't there a way to replicate DNA as many times as needed? If so, then maybe that's how the DNA can go here, there and everywhere. I may be wrong or mixed up on what can be replicated. Nedd: That's called Cloning, and I don't beleive it's being done with DNA testing as of yet. ********* Ahem. Hey, kids, remember Dolly the sheep? Cute little devil. She was a clone. Can't remember how many years ago that was, but it quite some time ago. If ned, with his interest in science, kept up at all on the science news, or the news in general, because it's all over the news these days, he would know there are human cloning attempts going on right this instant. Can't recall exactly where, was it Australia and possibly one of the Scandanavian countries? There will probably also be a real battle here in our own country over the cloning of human beings. My boss has mentioned this a couple of times - says there are a lot of moral and legal issues involved in cloning, of course, but the technology is there to accomplish it, it's only a matter of time before there are cloned humans running around. In fact, the technology is scarey - what's coming in the future, probably long after I'm gone from this earth - is beyond our scope of understanding right now. The most beneficial results of DNA and RNA studies now is the future manipulation of diseases - cancer and aids will be a thing of the past. Viruses will be manipulated to go in a wipe out tumors. Naturally, there is a lot of room there for monkey business, too, and I don't mean monkeys. If you think biological warfare is scarey now, just wait - bad people will always use the latest technology to do bad things. The future will be such an interesting place to be, but I think it will also bring huge changes - some of them maybe not so good. Enough preaching. To work I go. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "with all due respect" Posted by Hence4th on 09:47:49 5/24/2001 I think "cloning" refers to organisms and "replication" refers to molecules, as in long-chain polymers, as in DNA. That may have been Nedd's point; then again, maybe not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "I understand that, " Posted by Watching you on 09:49:09 5/24/2001 Henceforth, I don't think Ned does. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I have this eerie feeling" Posted by Hence4th on 09:52:14 5/24/2001 that somebody's watching me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Never a dull moment!" Posted by Ginja on 12:02:26 5/24/2001 WY, as to wearing gloves, I don't buy it. I believe (and this is personal belief) that the birefringent material was transferred from the paint brush. Varnish, lacquer, paint...these are all birefringent materials. I also remember way back (probably from PMPT) the talk about the varnish or whatever cracking and chipping off. Now...this could very well be due to the fact that the end was snapped off. As to being transferred by the paintstick, I don't necessarily mean that it was due to the stick being inserted. It could very well have been transferred by hand when the perp handled and broke the stick. The mucosa contained both the wood sliver and birefringent material. If we go back to the evidence Smit presented, we see that the body had to have been left on the floor outside the door to the wine cellar. There's a green carpet outside that door. Fibers from that carpet were on JonBenet. Also outside that door are the wood shards/slivers. The paintstick was broken outside the door - not inside the wine cellar. Also crucial here is the fact that those brown cotton fibers were all over the place outside that door - they were on JBR's body, on the duct tape and cord. What this indicates is, again, she was placed outside the door while the perp went about looking for staging materials. After finding them, he went back to the body, broke the stick and wrapped the cord around it. The big question here is, did he wrap the cord around her throat outside the door, or...after he fashioned the garotte, did he pick her up and carry her and everything else into the wine cellar and complete the staging? I think it's quite possible that JBR was violated twice that night. It's no secret I'm going with the incest scenario. The chronic abuse is evident and obvious. Some perp off the street wasn't visiting JBR prior to her murder; so, someone in that house was abusing her. My money's on Daddy. That abuse was the catalyst for what then ended in JBR's demise. But as we can see, she was strangled down in the basement. With so much forensic evidence sitting right outside that wine cellar door, I seriously doubt JBR was conscious and watching her killer fashion the garotte! John is written all over incest. Someone was abusing this child long before the final abuse of 12/26/96. Patsy is written all over coverup. The staging and murder tools came out of her art tray and it's her fibers on the tape and in the wine cellar. I think John did his thing upstairs, Patsy caught them, hauled off and "accidentally" knocked her daughter unconscious. Downstairs, Patsy realized she had to cover up her husband's abuse, ergo out comes the stick, and the rest follows. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 12:32:29 5/24/2001 We aren't actually disagreeing on this - except for the gloves, and I don't have any idea if he was wearing gloves, that was just one possibility. The lack of fingerprints might lead one to believe there were gloves, but I'm not stuck on that idea. You could very well be right. With or without gloves, I think that birefringement material was transferred by (I think) a finger vs the paintbrush handle. The reason I think that is because the authorities have the paint brush handle and (hopefully) they would have tested that handle for body fluids and blood and stuff. Now, we know this means nothing, but we haven't heard one word about blood or vaginal fluids being on that paint brush handle. I don't think it was ever used to violate her. It isn't likely the perp broke the handle, jammed it inside her, then made his noose thing. It is more likely the handle was broken precisely for the purpose of fashioning that garrote, the birefringement material adhered to the hand, or glove if worn, of the perp and was introduced into JB's vagina via transferral. That's what I think. There are other possibilities as well. Which brings us to where she was murdered/staged. I don't have a firm theory on where she was murdered, but I believe a lot of activity went on on that green carpet just in front of the wine cellar, as you said. But, you know what? I read the other day that carpet was never collected as evidence. That sounds like a major mistake to me. What goodies lingered there for years before being torn up just recently and that room sealed off? I don't think JB was very much alive at that time, if at all. After all these years, I still can't say I clearly understand which one did it, but my feelings haven't changed about one thing - I think they are both involved. When the second person became involved is in question, but they both are involved. It looks like incest to me, but I don't want to believe it. It also looks like an act of rage, with the head blow. One killed her, the other was an accomplice. That much I believe. The really strange thing is how they've hung in there together, acting the loving couple - no sign of animousity whatsoever. Someone is a real tyrant in that house. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Misinformed?" Posted by mary99 on 15:03:38 5/24/2001 "....The reason I think that is because the authorities have the paint brush handle and (hopefully) they would have tested that handle for body fluids and blood and stuff." "Now, we know this means nothing, but we haven't heard one word about blood or vaginal fluids being on that paint brush handle." The authorities do not have both of the ends of the paintbrush, only one. The middle was the 'handle', the tip is missing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Human Cloning" Posted by JR on 14:39:18 5/24/2001 Clonaid starts cloning human baby A secret human cloning laboratory run by Clonaid is said to be based in the Nevada desert, with the first human cloned baby expected to be born in 2001. The plan is that the human cloning experiment will produce a replacement copy of a 10 month old girl who died last year. Clonaid says five British couples, including two pairs of homosexual men have asked to be cloned. Peter and Ildako Blackburn, computer consultants from Huntingdon Cambrisdgeshire UK have expressed an interest in human cloning as an alternative infertility treatment but will not say if they are in touch with Clonaid. (Source Sunday Times 5 November 2000) Clonaid is registered in the Bahamas and was founded by the Raelian movement who claim more than 50,000 members in 85 countries. Brigitte Boisellier is a 44 year old French biochemist who often speaks for Clonaid as scientific director. She says that Clonaid will shift from animal cloning to human cloning experiments in January 2001, hoping for the first human cloning pregnancies by February. More than 50 surrogate mothers have been selected to carry the human cloned foetuses throughout pregnancy, including Brigitte Boisellier's own 22 year old daughter, Marina Cocolios. Raelians believe that humans are all cloned from alien scientists who visited earth. The movement was started by Claude Vorilhorn, following a spiritual experience in 1973. He changed his name to Rael and founded the cult. America has no laws preventing human cloning research, unlike the UK, although no public funding is available. Headlines on sites: Australia has been home to secret human cloning experiments for two years. Italian Professor Severino Antinori and Panos Zavos claim they are going ahead with human cloning for women who are infertile despite the ban on Italian human cloning experiments. UK Parliament approves human cloning for medical research. http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm http://www.humancloning.org/news.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Something to chew on" Posted by Ginja on 14:53:40 5/24/2001 Well, WY I think we're on the same playing field (and may I add - I think it's quite level) ;-) Yes, I'm as sure as I can be without actually having evidence that gloves were not worn. For two reasons: (1) why would the birefringent material only be found in her vagina? and (2) fingerprints were found on her body. I just can't see this perp putting gloves on simply to effect vaginal trauma, yet takes the gloves off to handle the body (considering where the fingerprint was found, it was left either in undressing her or redressing her). Likewise, why wouldn't birefringent material be found on anything else handled by him? Now...as my mind works here, I've come up with some more thoughts. Not original...but I am playing off so-called "facts". Our on-site scientist, Mr. DNA (yuk yuk) swears that the DNA material found in the panties is blood, and further, that it's male. Our on-site reporter swears the material under the fingernails is flesh. I can't remember if she swore it was male or not. However, Mr. DNA does (swears that the undernail matter is male AND matches the panty DNA). Whatever. Anyway...our on-site people get their facts from what they refer to as reliable sources. Query whether or not these reliable sources are members of the official investigation team. Because as has been pointed out in previous posts, a real detective, who worked on the official investigation, who had access to the official records and evidence, states emphatically that no skin or blood was found under her nails. Further, Dr. Henry Lee has stated repeatedly that this is not a DNA case. Seeing as how so much was made of the hair (not pubic as originally thought) found on the blanket as evidence of an intruder, I would think that if any hair follicles or shafts were found either under her nails or in her panties, it would have been made a matter of public record by now. Since it hasn't, then I think it safe to assume that another source for DNA (hair) isn't the material that makes up this undetermined matter under the nails and in the panties. Hair, blood, skin...what other sources are there for DNA? Body fluids such as sweat and saliva. Bone marrow...but I seriously doubt there was any of that found at the crime scene. So what's it leave us with? Also at issue with this 'dna material' is degradation and contamination. Aside from environment (e.g., inner clothing, cross-contamination in gathering evidence at lab and testing it), what else is at issue? Is there dna material in urine? I think we touched upon this once and learned there wasn't...but of that I'm not sure. But...seeing as how JBR was a chronic bedwetter, not to mention the acidity of urine, could it be possible that urine affected these samples? It may not be a source for dna, but could it be a contaminant? And because of that contamination, identification is basically impossible? The material matches itself (nails and panties). The panty material is COMINGLED with JBR's blood. And would/could she have handled it herself, touching/changing her clothing, or wiping herself after going potty, if she had urinated (in the bathroom or in bed)? Could the material be her own, but contamination and degradation caused the material to be unidentifiable? Something to chew over, I would think. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "This much I know" Posted by Watching you on 15:39:07 5/24/2001 about DNA, Ginja. You can't change it. Well, you can, scientists can manipulate genes, but for all basic intent, DNA can't be changed. Urine contains no DNA, unless there is an infection present, perhaps in the bladder or kidneys that sheds DNA cells into the urine, but I asked my boss this question once, and he told me urine is waste material containing no DNA. It could not contaminate DNA. I think we shouldn't get confused as to what contamination means with DNA. I am pretty sure it means contaminated with other DNA, not things like urine, feces, stuff like that. I asked him if bleach could alter DNA. The answer is no. Of course, if you bleach an item with blood on it, it may remove most of the blood stain, but the DNA itself cannot be altered. Degraded is something else altogether - that is just the breaking down of the DNA so that it is not identifiable in part or whole. The warmth and dampness of the panty area would be conducive to degradation but it would not change the DNA at all. Am I clear as mud? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "DNA Sources" Posted by JR on 15:37:47 5/24/2001 Another misconception: DNA testing can only be done on some kind of biologic material (e.g., blood, saliva, semen, skin tissue, hair) that contains an individual's DNA. It cannot be done, for example, on a suspect's fingerprints. Finally, many people don't realize that DNA testing can be done on old and even partially degraded material, although the value of the results may be compromised if the samples were contaminated as a result of having been improperly collected or stored. Hair poses particular challenges. The strands themselves will not generate a profile through application of standard DNA testing, which requires the presence of the hair follicle. New advances in mitochondrial DNA testing have produced accepted tests results in recent cases. This testing is prohibitively expensive and is, at this time, only being done by the FBI laboratory. Otherwise, equally valid DNA profiles may be isolated from each of the other bodily fluids mentioned (for semen to generate a DNA profile, the sample must contain sperm). Each can offer the same information with the same degree of precision. Clearly, taking a saliva sample from a suspect is the least physically intrusive. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/etc/faqs.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Questions" Posted by Hence4th on 16:52:31 5/24/2001 All of the foregoing is very interesting. Has all this new fiber evidence been reported in the media--green fibers from the carpet on the body; brown fibers on the carpet near the entrance to the wine cellar and inside the wine cellar, and on the body, the duct tape and the cord? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Missing paint brush tip" Posted by v_p on 18:32:22 5/24/2001 Maybe Burke "whittled" it away. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "ayelean" Posted by ayelean on 19:14:21 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:14:21, 5/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:11:31, 5/24/2001 DNA is protein, FRESH pineapple contains an enzyme that liquifies protein. (You cannot put fresh pineapple in Jello because it will break down the protein in the gelatin and the Jello will not set. Canned pineapple is ok, cooking the pineapple in the canning process destroys that enzyme.) We know JB ate fresh pineapple and her prints were not found on the bowl. If she ate it with her fingers she got fresh pineapple juice under her nails and I contend that any DNA would have been affected by this enzyme. If she scratched her butt, or otherwise put her fingers in her genital area she could have transferred this same enzyme-acted-upon DNA there. Edited to say Holly should be credited with this idea. Also to state, if this is the case, then the dna was under her nail prior to the murder. Edited again to put the qualifiers in to bold the word FRESH. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "whittled" Posted by Hence4th on 19:00:15 5/24/2001 The stick was irregularly broken at both ends. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. " thanks" Posted by v_p on 19:07:46 5/24/2001 Hence ... how long is the missing piece? No matter how much you read, you miss something... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "length" Posted by Hence4th on 19:13:02 5/24/2001 Yeah, I know what you mean. 4.5 inches according to the AR. Why do you think the perp bothered to break the paintbrush? Wouldn't the unbroken brush have served just as well, if not better? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "ayelean: your post #66" Posted by Hence4th on 19:16:13 5/24/2001 Plant DNA can be distinguished from animal DNA. The foreign DNA has been described by Thomas as male. Just curious: can the sex of plants be determined from their DNA? I suppose. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Pineapple juice" Posted by Watching you on 19:15:52 5/24/2001 might cause degradation of the DNA, but it would not alter the DNA itself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "snip" Posted by Hence4th on 19:18:21 5/24/2001 If a strand of DNA is cut in half has it been altered? Which half? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "When did Thomas" Posted by Watching you on 19:21:39 5/24/2001 say the DNA was male? I never heard that before. If you cut a dna strand in half, have you altered it? I guess it depends on where you cut it, hahaha. Silly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "it's in JonBenet" Posted by Hence4th on 19:30:02 5/24/2001 I'll try to find it and post it. Silly!? Who? Me?? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "male DNA" Posted by Hence4th on 19:45:28 5/24/2001 page 268: "The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any MALE as the donor of a secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days. "The experts noted no blood or skin tissue beneath the fingernails, as they often see when a victim has fought an attacker. However, DNA can be deposited by someone merely dragging their nails across their own cheek. "The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguous, with JonBenet again appearing to be the primary donor and once again and unidentified secondary MALE DNA present. Page 267: "The primary DNA from the panties also appeared to be from her. But a secondary DNA source may have been present. If that secondary material was a mixture from two or more people, then the labs could exclude no one. Faint DNA results may have been due to "technical or stutter artifact." The testing was done at Cellmark. Note that Thomas does not say that the panty DNA matched the right fingernail DNA matched the left fingernail DNA, so where did this common DNA story originate? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Male DNA?" Posted by JR on 19:33:45 5/24/2001 See post #49. To my knowledge Thomas never said it was male but he could have come back later and I missed it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Lets start a new thread" Posted by ayelean on 19:36:57 5/24/2001 I will start a fouth one. Don't post here anymore. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]