Mindy

And just to clarify.... The matching DNA is from two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing when she was found murdered..... The DNA found on the leggings was from skin cells and the DNA on her panties was from saliva or nasal secretions from a sneeze the fact that they match rules out contamination from a worker at the panty factory.....

__________________
"Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.”

Dr. Erik Erikson

Mindy

LOL, I didn't mean you Teresa, you, like I used to, firmly believe they are responsible. I meant people on another board who are freaking out and posting all kinds of made up stuff...

Not sure what to tell you, except your question is very valid. I will see what else I can find.

I really think it's possible it was someone John knew through work that really wanted to hurt him big time.

__________________
"Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.”

Dr. Erik Erikson

Mindy

During 12 years DNA advancements have been huge.

Touch DNA has only been in existance for about 3 years.

__________________
"Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.”

Dr. Erik Erikson

Mindy

Teresa, here is an explanation from one of my co-posters, who agreed I could quote her words



"LCN (or 'Touch') dna is a technique that was developed by the UK Forensic Science Service in 1999. It is performed by only a few laboratories across the world and is extremely expensive but necessary when only small amounts of DNA are recovered.

LCN dna analysis is like traditional DNA analysis, but the technology allows for very minute samples (15-20 cells) to be amplified into a genetic profile ......hence the name, Low Copy Number. Prior to this technology, samples that small were useless. It earned it's nickname 'Touch' because everytime we touch something, we leave minute traces of our dna and this technique is sensitive enough to pick that up. But this same technique can be used to detect other minute sources of dna (e.g. from sweat).

A word of caution when reading up about Touch dna: 1) Consider the source. IOW don't rely on People Magazine to provide you with accurate scientific information. The media often makes major mistakes when reporting about dna and other complex scientific topics. 2) Check the date. Limitations to dna analysis or amplification in 2005 may not be limitations today. It is an emerging science and advances are being made all the time, so what was true 10 yrs ago, 5 yrs ago, or last month may not be true today.

But to answer your above question about how the 12 year old samples were preserved, they would be handled and preserved just like any other biological evidence. If biological evidence is stored properly (in this case, since it was a dry sample it would be frozen at -20 C) it will last indefinitely. There are cases where samples were preserved for 20+ years and successfully analyzed using pcr."

__________________
"Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.”

Dr. Erik Erikson