PDA

View Full Version : DNA Revisited



Pages : 1 [2] 3

SuperDave
06-07-2010, 05:19 PM
Just wondering though, if the parents are suspects (as parents always are in such cases according to RDI), why then would their DNA be filtered out?

That's pretty much the point. We don't know what the DA's office told Bode. If they told them, "look, we've got this DNA. Can you guys find anything that matches it so we'll have more to go on," then they might indeed filter it out. Bode's a private lab and they do what their clients pay them to do. Since it's obvious that ML had already made up her mind that the DNA was deposited criminally, I would expect her to tell Bode what cynic suggests.


Wouldn't it have been defeating the purpose to only look for unknown DNA? AND if DNA from known persons WAS filtered out, how about other potential suspects whose DNA may have been dismissed as innocently placed?

To answer both of those at once, we have to ask the question: "what WAS the purpose?"

Tadpole12
06-07-2010, 05:26 PM
'ere ya go SD.

Bode Technologies

http://www.bodetech.com/

Contact Us/ Bode Technologies
http://www.bodetech.com/contact-us

SuperDave
06-07-2010, 05:32 PM
'ere ya go SD.

Bode Technologies

http://www.bodetech.com/

Contact Us/ Bode Technologies
http://www.bodetech.com/contact-us

All right. I'll do my thing and I'll let you guys know as soon as I hear anything.

MurriFlower
06-07-2010, 08:13 PM
LHP was swabbed for DNA, her profile did not match the CODIS profile derived from the DNA in JBR's panties.

And you know this for a fact Cynic?

cynic
06-07-2010, 08:29 PM
And you know this for a fact Cynic?
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-hoffmann-pugh.htm

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA%20Evidence

MurriFlower
06-07-2010, 08:52 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-hoffmann-pugh.htm


"Got DNA
YES
No
match
PMPT
Page
664sb"


http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA%20Evidence

"Who Has Been Cleared by DNA?

* 60 People Cleared. CBS News reports 60 persons have been "cleared" based on their DNA tests.
* Ramsey Family Members. The DNA does not match John Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey or Jeff Ramsey, the brother of John Ramsey (see Internet poster Jayelles post of 07-05-2004 02:29 PM). This is consistent with a statement by private detective Ollie Gray in a 48 Hours interview, in which he stated the DNA evidence eliminates the Ramseys. A transcript and (blurry) version of the DNA report are posted at Webbsleuths.
* Friends of Family. Internet poster Jayelles has deduced that the DNA also has cleared, Fleet White and Priscilla White
* Other Individuals. Internet poster Jayelles has deduced that the DNA also has cleared Mervin Pugh, the Ramsey's handyman."

Hi Cynic

Yes, I can read this too. You gave the impression that you knew more about this case than what is available for us all to read. Unless I'm mistaken the ACR info does not clear LHP nor does the pbworks article. Unless of course, you take the book PMPT as gospel? The fact that she was DNA tested does not automatically indicate that she was 'cleared', but perhaps as I suggested, it was just to eliminate the supposedly 'innocent' DNA. That a poster on the internet 'deduced' that MP was cleared does not make it correct either.

cynic
06-07-2010, 09:08 PM
You gave the impression that you knew more about this case than what is available for us all to read. Unless I'm mistaken the ACR info does not clear LHP nor does the pbworks article. Unless of course, you take the book PMPT as gospel? The fact that she was DNA tested does not automatically indicate that she was 'cleared', but perhaps as I suggested, it was just to eliminate the supposedly 'innocent' DNA. That a poster on the internet 'deduced' that MP was cleared does not make it correct either.
There is a limited pool of information, of course, but LHP according to ST was the first suspect, as her name came up immediately when the Rs were asked by police for potential suspects.

MurriFlower
06-07-2010, 09:12 PM
There is a limited pool of information, of course, but LHP according to ST was the first suspect, as her name came up immediately when the Rs were asked by police for potential suspects.
Besides, the DNA in question is male DNA.

Well if you scroll back to my original question, I asked if supposedly innocent DNA was excluded. As neither the Rs nor LHP were on record as having DNA found on either the body or clothing of JBR, then we can assume that it was.

DeeDee249
06-07-2010, 09:19 PM
Well if you scroll back to my original question, I asked if supposedly innocent DNA was excluded. As neither the Rs nor LHP were on record as having DNA found on either the body or clothing of JBR, then we can assume that it was.

LE has not released all their information, including any "innocent" DNA that was found (for example, parental DNA on places the "unknown male" DNA was also found). Possibly there was certain DNA profiles that were excluded.

cynic
06-07-2010, 09:25 PM
Well if you scroll back to my original question, I asked if supposedly innocent DNA was excluded. As neither the Rs nor LHP were on record as having DNA found on either the body or clothing of JBR, then we can assume that it was.
I hardly think that LHP's profile would be categorized as innocent. I may not be as hard on LE as some here are, but I really can't see them dismissing forensic evidence from LHP.

MurriFlower
06-07-2010, 09:39 PM
I hardly think that LHP's profile would be categorized as innocent. I may not be as hard on LE as some here are, but I really can't see them dismissing forensic evidence from LHP.

As she did the laundry and probably took the clean clothes back to their place, it's probable. However, we'll never know if her DNA was found there and dismissed will we?

cynic
06-08-2010, 10:29 AM
As she did the laundry and probably took the clean clothes back to their place, it's probable. However, we'll never know if her DNA was found there and dismissed will we?
She may have laundered the long johns, but the panties were allegedly new, from a package. There would be no reason why she would have had innocent contact with those.

WHITEFANG
06-08-2010, 11:58 AM
How many people were polygraphed altogether in this case? Was LHP given one?

DeeDee249
06-08-2010, 03:59 PM
As she did the laundry and probably took the clean clothes back to their place, it's probable. However, we'll never know if her DNA was found there and dismissed will we?

LHP did the R's laundry right in their own home. She didn't take them to her own home to launder and bring back. LHP told LE that when she would arrive in the morning, Patsy already had JB's bed stripped and the wet sheets in the washer. The white blanket was always washed in the basement, usually by LHP, because it didn't fit in the smaller washer outside JB's bedroom. She did most of the rest of the family's laundry in the basement- apparently there was a laundry chute that Patsy and JR used. She said the home had no hampers and dirty clothes that weren't put in the launder chute were dropped on the floor. The kids always just dropped their dirty clothes wherever they took them off. Patsy was questioned about this and said the same thing.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 07:46 PM
She may have laundered the long johns, but the panties were allegedly new, from a package. There would be no reason why she would have had innocent contact with those.

Maybe you should read your own post: the long johns were laundered and the panties were new. How does matching DNA get on both the inside crotch and the waistband? According to Bode, touch DNA comes out in the laundry--the're not so successful when testing laundered clothing.

Also, who was the criminal that handled these clothing items that night? You're answer: PR and/or JR is the criminal and deposited someone elses DNA while doing so, without depositing their own. Not just once or twice, but thrice. Have I got this right? And if so, how absurd is this?

My suggestion for RDI is to include an intruder owner of DNA. That is, if you still want the R's to be guilty, then you'll be needing a co-conspirator DNA owner.

cynic
06-08-2010, 08:08 PM
Maybe you should read your own post: the long johns were laundered and the panties were new. How does matching DNA get on both the inside crotch and the waistband? According to Bode, touch DNA comes out in the laundry--the're not so successful when testing laundered clothing.

Also, who was the criminal that handled these clothing items that night? You're answer: PR and/or JR is the criminal and deposited someone elses DNA while doing so, without depositing their own. Not just once or twice, but thrice. Have I got this right? And if so, how absurd is this?

My suggestion for RDI is to include an intruder owner of DNA. That is, if you still want the R's to be guilty, then you'll be needing a co-conspirator DNA owner.

Proven in the lab and in the field, I've posted the sources multiple times.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 08:26 PM
Proven in the lab and in the field, I've posted the sources multiple times.


Your claim that someone can successfully deposit someone else's touch DNA three times in succession without depositing any of their own touch DNA...has not been proven in the lab or the field.

I suggest you have misinterpreted the results, if that is what you believe.

I further suggest that we make up our minds: was JR and PR DNA present and 'dismissed' by people who are making up their minds unilaterally on what is and isn't innocent forensic evidence? Or was JR and PR DNA not present on the underwear, and so they were unwitting hosts to unknown male DNA? Or are we going to leave both these options open, so long as RDI?

cynic
06-08-2010, 08:29 PM
How many people were polygraphed altogether in this case? Was LHP given one?
The only one I've heard of is Glenn Meyer, the guy who rented a basement room in the home of the Barnhills.
(In terms of an LE administered polygraph, that is.)

DeeDee249
06-08-2010, 08:31 PM
Your claim that someone can successfully deposit someone else's touch DNA three times in succession without depositing any of their own touch DNA...has not been proven in the lab or the field.

I suggest you have misinterpreted the results, if that is what you believe.

I further suggest that we make up our minds: was JR and PR DNA present and 'dismissed' by people who are making up their minds unilaterally on what is and isn't innocent forensic evidence? Or was JR and PR DNA not present on the underwear, and so they were unwitting hosts to unknown male DNA? Or are we going to leave both these options open, so long as RDI?

I'd say the parents' DNA HAD to be there. Patsy pulled the longjohns up on an allegedly sleeping JB. Even if JB wasn't asleep I am sure Patsy helped her get ready for bed. JR carried her up with his hands around her waist. And if you are RDI, you'd probably believe that JR redressed her as his shirt fibers are inside the panties, so he'd have pulled the lohgjohns up as down.

cynic
06-08-2010, 08:35 PM
Your claim that someone can successfully deposit someone else's touch DNA three times in succession without depositing any of their own touch DNA...has not been proven in the lab or the field.

I suggest you have misinterpreted the results, if that is what you believe.

I further suggest that we make up our minds: was JR and PR DNA present and 'dismissed' by people who are making up their minds unilaterally on what is and isn't innocent forensic evidence? Or was JR and PR DNA not present on the underwear, and so they were unwitting hosts to unknown male DNA? Or are we going to leave both these options open, so long as RDI?
I haven't misinterpreted anything. You are ignoring the reality of the foibles of this type of evidence.
Both options are most certainly open, as they are both viable. Those are far from the only possibilities, I might add.
I'll repeat myself, yet again, this DNA has the same liabilities that hair and fiber evidence has. We are not talking blood or semen.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 08:41 PM
I haven't misinterpreted anything. You are ignoring the reality of the foibles of this type of evidence.
Both options are most certainly open, as they are both viable. Those are far from the only possibilities, I might add.
I'll repeat myself, yet again, this DNA has the same liabilities that hair and fiber evidence has. We are not talking blood or semen.

Right. How about the one possibility where the owner of some skin cells actually touched JBR's underwear AND longjohns between the time they were laundered/packaged and the time JBR's underwear was swabbed/scraped? How about that one, huh?

At least then we can move from scenarios on how PR touched some clothes and unwittingly left an unknown males DNA on it without leaving her own, three times. If there are more possibilities, fine. But please spare me that one, at least. I'm more interested in whats plausible, not astronomically possible.

cynic
06-08-2010, 08:46 PM
Right. How about the one possibility where the owner of some skin cells actually touched JBR's underwear and longjohns between the time they were laundered/packaged and the time JBR's underwear was swabbed/scraped? How about that one, huh?

At least then we can move from scenarios on how PR touched some clothes and unwittingly left an unknown males DNA on it without leaving her own, three times. If there are more possibilities, fine. But please spare me that one, at least.
Just because you don't wish to accept the absolute fact that secondary transfer is a path for DNA, that does not make it untrue. I'm sorry if doesn't fit into your framework of what may have happened that night.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 08:50 PM
Just because you don't wish to accept the absolute fact that secondary transfer is a path for DNA, that does not make it untrue. I'm sorry if doesn't fit into your framework of what may have happened that night.

Apology accepted.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 08:55 PM
Just because you don't wish to accept the absolute fact that secondary transfer is a path for DNA, that does not make it untrue. I'm sorry if doesn't fit into your framework of what may have happened that night.

Of course secondary transfer is a path for DNA. I never claimed it wasn't. However, secondary transfer as a path for THIS DNA is another story entirely. The odds of secondary transfer went way down with the discovery of matching touch DNA in two (2) separate locations on the waistband. Bode does not discuss the probabilty that this DNA in two locations was by secondary transfer.

You're the only one doing that. Also, your extensive list of postulates exclude direct transfer by DNA owner.

cynic
06-08-2010, 09:11 PM
Of course secondary transfer is a path for DNA. I never claimed it wasn't. However, secondary transfer as a path for THIS DNA is another story entirely. The odds of secondary transfer went way down with the discovery of matching touch DNA in two (2) separate locations on the waistband. Bode does not discuss the probabilty that this DNA in two locations was by secondary transfer.

You're the only one doing that.
I have sourced DNA experts who have spent a great deal of time researching DNA transfer issues specifically. I might be one of the few people quoting their work, as it generally is found exclusively in forensic journals and periodicals.
DNA in three locations may be remarkable to you, but it is not.
In addition to the lab work that illustrates this, the Janelle Patton case shows it to be true in the field.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 09:18 PM
I have sourced DNA experts who have spent a great deal of time researching DNA transfer issues specifically. I might be one of the few people quoting their work, as it generally is found exclusively in forensic journals and periodicals.
DNA in three locations may be remarkable to you, but it is not.
In addition to the lab work that illustrates this, the Janelle Patton case shows it to be true in the field.

While you're arguments seem to rely on the existence of DNA dust, floating about here and there like fibers in the laundry basket, I am stuck here in reality where I want to know HOW the DNA from an UNKNOWN MALE was deposited on two separate articles of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered.

While you are satisfied with the random DNA dust, I am not. I wish to know, even if innocent, how this DNA came to be there.

In reality, how does someone's skin cells get onto someone elses clothes? What are the scenarios, from most to least likely?

cynic
06-08-2010, 09:37 PM
While you're arguments seem to rely on the existence of DNA dust, floating about here and there like fibers in the laundry basket, I am stuck here in reality where I want to know HOW the DNA from an UNKNOWN MALE was deposited on two separate articles of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered.

While you are satisfied with the random DNA dust, I am not. I wish to know, even if innocent, how this DNA came to be there.

In reality, how does someone's skin cells get onto someone elses clothes? What are the scenarios, from most to least likely?
Do we know how the DNA got to where it was found in the JP case? No, because we are not "all-seeing" and "all-knowing."
Hand-to-hand-to-clothing is a typical secondary transfer path, that is one possibility. It could also be down to carelessness resulting in contamination. There are other possibilities as well.
IDI seems to have no problem with scenarios involving innocent fiber transfer, as this type of DNA has the same issues, the same type of possibilities exist.

Holdontoyourhat
06-08-2010, 11:33 PM
In reality, how does someone's skin cells get onto someone elses clothes? What are the scenarios, from most to least likely?


Do we know how the DNA got to where it was found in the JP case? No, because we are not "all-seeing" and "all-knowing."
Hand-to-hand-to-clothing is a typical secondary transfer path, that is one possibility. It could also be down to carelessness resulting in contamination. There are other possibilities as well.
IDI seems to have no problem with scenarios involving innocent fiber transfer, as this type of DNA has the same issues, the same type of possibilities exist.


My question was straighforward. Your answer seems to evade and thus conceal the most likely scenarios.

Why is that? Why do you feel the need to do that?

Is anyone else able to answer my question, but without circumventing or concealing information?

WHITEFANG
06-09-2010, 12:32 AM
e. He has never discussed it publicly.

15 He has refused to do so. Don Foster was not

16 rejected by the Boulder District Attorney's office

17 because he sought publicity. Don Foster was

18 rejected because he concluded, after being hired

19 by Steve Thomas, that Patsy Ramsey was the author

20 of the note, and they thereafter found out that

21 he had, prior to being hired by the Boulder

22 District Attorney's office, written a three-page

23 letter to Patsy Ramsey stating unequivocally that

24 he would stake his stake his reputation on her innocence

25 that she was not the author of the note.

WHITEFANG
06-09-2010, 12:49 AM
JR : I will tell you what

2 my feeling is, and I have said this a number of

3 times, that we need a law in this country that

4 prevents the police from talking to the media

5 about evidence in an ongoing case.

6 We have bypassed the constitutional

7 provisions that have been put in place to protect

8 people's rights when the police could disclose

9 evidence to the media for entertainment.

10 It is a law in England. If some of

11 the things that the media had done in this

12 country and that the police had done in Boulder

13 had been done in England, they would be in jail.

14 It is a simple law. I think we need that in

15 our society.

The statement found above was made by the person found guilty of this heinous murder, until he's proven innocent. Due to his conviction, we discredit and discount every word that comes out of his mouth. Remember, the most crucial point about this is simple. This convicted murderer does nothing but lie. He has no credibility whatsoever, ever.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 03:24 PM
I further suggest that we make up our minds: was JR and PR DNA present and 'dismissed' by people who are making up their minds unilaterally on what is and isn't innocent forensic evidence? Or was JR and PR DNA not present on the underwear, and so they were unwitting hosts to unknown male DNA?

With nothing else to work with so far, I'd go with the first one, at least for now.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 03:48 PM
e. He has never discussed it publicly.

15 He has refused to do so. Don Foster was not

16 rejected by the Boulder District Attorney's office

17 because he sought publicity. Don Foster was

18 rejected because he concluded, after being hired

19 by Steve Thomas, that Patsy Ramsey was the author

20 of the note, and they thereafter found out that

21 he had, prior to being hired by the Boulder

22 District Attorney's office, written a three-page

23 letter to Patsy Ramsey stating unequivocally that

24 he would stake his stake his reputation on her innocence

25 that she was not the author of the note.

Nice try, Fang, but the person who said this is either misinformed, or is oversimplifying to the point of distortion (and that's me being generous).

So, read this: http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Then get back to me.


The statement found above was made by the person found guilty of this heinous murder, until he's proven innocent. Due to his conviction, we discredit and discount every word that comes out of his mouth. Remember, the most crucial point about this is simple. This convicted murderer does nothing but lie. He has no credibility whatsoever, ever.

You're breaking my heart, Fang. You're right about the problem with credibility, though.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 03:59 PM
All right. I'll do my thing and I'll let you guys know as soon as I hear anything.

Well, folks, I DID get a response. But don't get too excited. I'd say I'm disappointed, but I don't think any of us really expected them to give away the store, did we?

A little context is in order. Here's what I wrote to them:

I am currently putting together a book concerning a case you did some work on: the killing of JonBenet Ramsey.

Let me come to the point. There are several questions I wish to have answered on behalf of my potential audience. I shall list them now:

1) Does the Touch DNA process filter out DNA that is not a match to another known sample? In other words, if a client were to task you with only finding corroborating DNA, is that possible and would you do it?

2) If so, is it commonplace for a client--be it a District Attorney or defense lawyer or cold-case detective--to specify what work you are to do?

All answers to these questions will contribute heavily to a better understanding behind the science of DNA.

Thank you very much.

Here is their response, EXACTLY as was given to me:

No Comment. We cannot talk about an ongoing investigation. Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

Thank you,
Sandra J. Wyatt
Executive Assistant

So that's it. "An ongoing investigation." How convenient. Don't get me wrong, it's probably true, but it brings up a few questions in its own right.

Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

I certainly hope so! I'd like to believe that they really will do that, and that it's not just a crock to placate me. But even then, how likely is it that those investigators will tell me anything?

I'm sorry, guys. I tried. I really did.

WHITEFANG
06-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Nice try, Fang, but the person who said this is either misinformed, or is oversimplifying to the point of distortion (and that's me being generous).

So, read this: http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Then get back to me.

I offer this up to all.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2 ATLANTA DIVISION

3 ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF,

Plaintiff,

4 CIVIL ACTION FILE

vs.

5 NO. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and

6 PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY,

Defendants.

7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

9 JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY


[QUOTE]You're breaking my heart, Fang. You're right about the problem with credibility, though.

You prove the point, perfectly.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 06:02 PM
[quote]

I offer this up to all.

You prove the point, perfectly.

I strive to please!

Let me be clear, Fang: in his deposition, he has to tell the truth, not the facts. I'm sure he believes what he said about Don Foster (I'm also sure that's what his lawyers TOLD him about it); but the facts show that his account is not quite kosher.

I also would submit that after five years, I wouldn't count on a lot of facts, even if they WERE telling the "truth." Self-hypnosis is a very powerful thing.

Holdontoyourhat
06-09-2010, 07:46 PM
Well, folks, I DID get a response. But don't get too excited. I'd say I'm disappointed, but I don't think any of us really expected them to give away the store, did we?

A little context is in order. Here's what I wrote to them:

I am currently putting together a book concerning a case you did some work on: the killing of JonBenet Ramsey.

Let me come to the point. There are several questions I wish to have answered on behalf of my potential audience. I shall list them now:

1) Does the Touch DNA process filter out DNA that is not a match to another known sample? In other words, if a client were to task you with only finding corroborating DNA, is that possible and would you do it?

2) If so, is it commonplace for a client--be it a District Attorney or defense lawyer or cold-case detective--to specify what work you are to do?

All answers to these questions will contribute heavily to a better understanding behind the science of DNA.

Thank you very much.

Here is their response, EXACTLY as was given to me:

No Comment. We cannot talk about an ongoing investigation. Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

Thank you,
Sandra J. Wyatt
Executive Assistant

So that's it. "An ongoing investigation." How convenient. Don't get me wrong, it's probably true, but it brings up a few questions in its own right.

Your email will be forwarded to the investigators in charge of this case.

I certainly hope so! I'd like to believe that they really will do that, and that it's not just a crock to placate me. But even then, how likely is it that those investigators will tell me anything?

I'm sorry, guys. I tried. I really did.

OK perhaps they can't talk about an ongoing investigation.

But, I'm not happy with your questions. They seem to be leading to a conclusion that you wish to make. I would've asked a different set of more neutral questions.

DeeDee249
06-09-2010, 08:02 PM
OK perhaps they can't talk about an ongoing investigation.

But, I'm not happy with your questions. They seem to be leading to a conclusion that you wish to make. I would've asked a different set of more neutral questions.

I don't see SD as asking leading questions. His seem pretty neutral to me. Perhaps in retrospect, I'd not have named the case the book was about. The way I see it, his questions themselves could be applied to any case where DNA had been tested, but because he mentioned JB by name, they refused to answer. Without that, I bet they may have given more of a satisfactory explanation of what they do.

WHITEFANG
06-09-2010, 08:03 PM
"In 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens claimed the Ramseys were hiding behind their lawyers." How's that for the presumption of innocence? The Governor. I'm glad I live Hawaii.


I strive to please!

Let me be clear, Fang: in his deposition, he has to tell the truth, not the facts. I'm sure he believes what he said about Don Foster (I'm also sure that's what his lawyers TOLD him about it); but the facts show that his account is not quite kosher.

I also would submit that after five years, I wouldn't count on a lot of facts, even if they WERE telling the "truth." Self-hypnosis is a very powerful thing.
Today 03:25 PM

Doesn't cut it.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 08:23 PM
But, I'm not happy with your questions.

I can't say that surprises me.


They seem to be leading to a conclusion that you wish to make.

I asked the questions the best way I knew how.


I would've asked a different set of more neutral questions.

Such as? Maybe that's where I went wrong. Maybe I should have asked what questions people had before I went and did it. Not that it makes any difference anyway. I didn't really expect any straight answers from them.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 08:26 PM
I don't see SD as asking leading questions. His seem pretty neutral to me. Perhaps in retrospect, I'd not have named the case the book was about. The way I see it, his questions themselves could be applied to any case where DNA had been tested, but because he mentioned JB by name, they refused to answer. Without that, I bet they may have given more of a satisfactory explanation of what they do.

Yeah, that's probably where I went wrong.

Well, if anyone else would like to give it a shot...

DeeDee249
06-09-2010, 08:27 PM
Yeah, that's probably where I went wrong.

Well, if anyone else would like to give it a shot...

You tried. You gave it a shot. And I thank you for that.

SuperDave
06-09-2010, 08:32 PM
"In 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens claimed the Ramseys were hiding behind their lawyers." How's that for the presumption of innocence? The Governor. I'm glad I live Hawaii.

Well, he didn't say anything that wasn't true.


Doesn't cut it.

Sadly, I didn't think it would.

MurriFlower
08-16-2010, 08:53 PM
Cynic: · Technology is now available to isolate male DNA from a mixture involving both male and female DNA. Y-STR testing should be done on the available DNA samples from the long johns and panties and those results compared to a buccal swab from John Ramsey.

I was thinking about the DNA and JMKs 'change' to a female. Can anyone tell me if a DNA sample would automatically detect gender? I'm thinking that it's possible that someone may have been actually a male, but dressing and living as a woman, perhaps even in the process of changing gender. So, if this were possible, would they have disregarded 'females' from testing automatically, if they were to discover 'male' DNA at a crime scene? Does CODIS offer male and female profiles separately?

DeeDee249
08-16-2010, 10:22 PM
I was thinking about the DNA and JMKs 'change' to a female. Can anyone tell me if a DNA sample would automatically detect gender? I'm thinking that it's possible that someone may have been actually a male, but dressing and living as a woman, perhaps even in the process of changing gender. So, if this were possible, would they have disregarded 'females' from testing automatically, if they were to discover 'male' DNA at a crime scene? Does CODIS offer male and female profiles separately?

Males are always genetic males, even if they have sex-change surgery and take female hormones. JMK (and others like him) will still have a male DNA profile. Our chromosomes themselves can never be changed. Sexual reassignment adds female hormones to the body (for men who wish to become women) and male hormones to women who wish to become men. While these hormones will have an effect, the actual chromosomal make-up will not be changed. For example, men who wish to become women may simply begin dressing/living as one. If they take the nest step, hormone therapy begins, and these men will grow rudimentary breasts and experience changes in body hair. To complete the change, breast augmentation would be needed and the penis altered. Sometimes castration (removal of the testicles) is also done. But keep in mind, these men will NOT "grow" a uterus, nor can one be transplanted that will actually function. The "pregnant man" that was in the news last year was actually a woman who had been taking male hormones and living as a man. He/she kept her uterus, so she was able to become pregnant and give birth. To do this, she had to stop taking the male hormones.

DeeDee249
08-16-2010, 10:34 PM
And no amount of female hormones will give men the ability to find things that are in plain sight but that they are unable to see. This is a function of the male species of human, and even if they become "women" they still don't have a uterus, which as all women know, functions as a tracking device.

Sorry- had to say it.

MurriFlower
08-16-2010, 10:39 PM
Males are always genetic males, even if they have sex-change surgery and take female hormones. JMK (and others like him) will still have a male DNA profile. Our chromosomes themselves can never be changed. Sexual reassignment adds female hormones to the body (for men who wish to become women) and male hormones to women who wish to become men. While these hormones will have an effect, the actual chromosomal make-up will not be changed. For example, men who wish to become women may simply begin dressing/living as one. If they take the nest step, hormone therapy begins, and these men will grow rudimentary breasts and experience changes in body hair. To complete the change, breast augmentation would be needed and the penis altered. Sometimes castration (removal of the testicles) is also done. But keep in mind, these men will NOT "grow" a uterus, nor can one be transplanted that will actually function. The "pregnant man" that was in the news last year was actually a woman who had been taking male hormones and living as a man. He/she kept her uterus, so she was able to become pregnant and give birth. To do this, she had to stop taking the male hormones.

I'm pretty sure I understand that, my question was, would a routine DNA test reveal gender? Would CODIS be divided into male and female? Would DNA collected from both males and females, in this case, be compared to males in CODIS or would the 'females' be excluded? Just wondering if a male masquerading as a female might have excaped comparison to the male DNA found on JBRs clothes?

cynic
08-17-2010, 01:58 AM
I'm pretty sure I understand that, my question was, would a routine DNA test reveal gender? Would CODIS be divided into male and female? Would DNA collected from both males and females, in this case, be compared to males in CODIS or would the 'females' be excluded? Just wondering if a male masquerading as a female might have excaped comparison to the male DNA found on JBRs clothes?
A DNA test easily determines the gender of an individual.
The AMEL marker will determine whether there is a XX genotype (female) or an XY genotype (male.) BTW this marker is in addition to the 13 markers that comprise a full CODIS profile.
On the graphical representation of a DNA profile, called an electropherogram, this will show up as either a single peak representing XX or two peaks representing XY.

In the partial electropherograms below, it shows the profiles of males. (The Amel marker is circled.)

http://i34.tinypic.com/2hr34le.jpg

MurriFlower
08-17-2010, 03:04 AM
A DNA test easily determines the gender of an individual.
The AMEL marker will determine whether there is a XX genotype (female) or an XY genotype (male.) BTW this marker is in addition to the 13 markers that comprise a full CODIS profile.
On the graphical representation of a DNA profile, called an electropherogram, this will show up as either a single peak representing XX or two peaks representing XY.

In the partial electropherograms below, it shows the profiles of males. (The Amel marker is circled.)

http://i34.tinypic.com/2hr34le.jpg

cynic: Thanks, but this only answers part of my question. If for example, BPD sent off 20 samples, 10 were from 'males' and 10 from 'females'. How are these samples labelled to identify the person who provided them? If a sample came from a male but was labelled 'Mrs X', for example, would anyone at the lab notice and remark on it? Or are samples identified only by number?

claudicici
08-17-2010, 03:12 AM
who is JMK?

MurriFlower
08-17-2010, 03:42 AM
And no amount of female hormones will give men the ability to find things that are in plain sight but that they are unable to see. This is a function of the male species of human, and even if they become "women" they still don't have a uterus, which as all women know, functions as a tracking device.

Sorry- had to say it.

AKA "having a boy's look" -- 'where's my.........??'

MurriFlower
08-17-2010, 03:45 AM
who is JMK?

John Mark Karr the man who confessed to killing JBR.

DeeDee249
08-17-2010, 03:20 PM
cynic: Thanks, but this only answers part of my question. If for example, BPD sent off 20 samples, 10 were from 'males' and 10 from 'females'. How are these samples labelled to identify the person who provided them? If a sample came from a male but was labelled 'Mrs X', for example, would anyone at the lab notice and remark on it? Or are samples identified only by number?

Cynic is the DNA expert here, but if a sample was mislabeled, it would still be read correctly as soon as it was examined. Any sample can be mislabeled- human error is always a risk. But someone posing as a female, whether they have had treatment to change their gender will still have only XY chromosomes. If the DNA sample is from a male, but is mislabeled when it gets to the lab, any technician who is trained to examine and classify it will know that it has been mislabeled and is actually from a male. Of course, if a man poses as a woman and NO ONE KNOWS IT, they might not be considered or tested against a sample that has been found to be male. But if that person WERE to be tested, their DNA would be male.
Is this what you were asking?

MurriFlower
08-17-2010, 06:34 PM
Cynic is the DNA expert here, but if a sample was mislabeled, it would still be read correctly as soon as it was examined. Any sample can be mislabeled- human error is always a risk. But someone posing as a female, whether they have had treatment to change their gender will still have only XY chromosomes. If the DNA sample is from a male, but is mislabeled when it gets to the lab, any technician who is trained to examine and classify it will know that it has been mislabeled and is actually from a male. Of course, if a man poses as a woman and NO ONE KNOWS IT, they might not be considered or tested against a sample that has been found to be male. But if that person WERE to be tested, their DNA would be male.
Is this what you were asking?

Yes, basically. If such a person was responsible, could they be overlooked because they were of the wrong 'gender'. There seems to be a lot of 'girly men' mixed up in this. PR commented that McSanta was quite effeminate. FW was "Mr Mom". JMK also was effeminate but has now changed gender. The first time I saw a picture of LHP, I thought, wow, "Mrs Doubtfire".

cynic
08-17-2010, 09:55 PM
Of course, if a man poses as a woman and NO ONE KNOWS IT, they might not be considered or tested against a sample that has been found to be male. But if that person WERE to be tested, their DNA would be male.

There's not much I could add to that. Once they are tested, all is revealed, but they have to be tested.

MurriFlower
08-17-2010, 11:18 PM
There's not much I could add to that. Once they are tested, all is revealed, but they have to be tested.

cynic, when samples are taken and sent to the lab, how are they labelled? For example, would yours be Mr. cynic and mine Mrs. MurriFlower?

Let's just say I am really a boy, (but dressing and living as a girl), would it automatically be noticed by the lab and remarked on? Gender, ethnicity, etc might be obvious from the test, but not necessarily noted as being inconsistent with the donor. I suppose I'm thinking there might be things that could slip through without being noticed unless you were specifically looking for them.

Where I'm going with this is, if someone was tested as a routine to exclude their DNA from the investigation, it may not be looked at as a possible match for male DNA when the donor was apparently a 'female'.

cynic
08-18-2010, 12:46 PM
cynic, when samples are taken and sent to the lab, how are they labelled? For example, would yours be Mr. cynic and mine Mrs. MurriFlower?

Let's just say I am really a boy, (but dressing and living as a girl), would it automatically be noticed by the lab and remarked on? Gender, ethnicity, etc might be obvious from the test, but not necessarily noted as being inconsistent with the donor. I suppose I'm thinking there might be things that could slip through without being noticed unless you were specifically looking for them.

Where I'm going with this is, if someone was tested as a routine to exclude their DNA from the investigation, it may not be looked at as a possible match for male DNA when the donor was apparently a 'female'.
According to ACR, DNA samples were obtained from a number of females, including LHP.
So it would seem unlikely, although not impossible, that LE would not obtain a sample from anyone they considered relevant, regardless of gender.
Let’s look at this hypothetical, police have a suspect in the case named Patricia Smith and they proceed to do an oral/buccal swab to obtain a DNA sample. Regardless of the labeling, information from the DNA profile will look like this:

Patricia Smith
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (9, 9.3), (8,8), (11, 11), (X, Y)

If that profile were compared to:

Crime Scene profile
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (X, Y)

The match would be at 10 markers
A “hit” or match at those loci would result in an investigation, and whoever it matched would have some serious explaining to do. It would be at this stage that “Patricia” would be asked why "she" has the genetic makeup of a man, not to mention, why “her” profile matches a crime scene profile.

DeeDee249
08-18-2010, 07:06 PM
cynic, when samples are taken and sent to the lab, how are they labelled? For example, would yours be Mr. cynic and mine Mrs. MurriFlower?

Let's just say I am really a boy, (but dressing and living as a girl), would it automatically be noticed by the lab and remarked on? Gender, ethnicity, etc might be obvious from the test, but not necessarily noted as being inconsistent with the donor. I suppose I'm thinking there might be things that could slip through without being noticed unless you were specifically looking for them.

Where I'm going with this is, if someone was tested as a routine to exclude their DNA from the investigation, it may not be looked at as a possible match for male DNA when the donor was apparently a 'female'.

I'd say when samples are submitted, the proper way to submit would be gender-blind, with a reference number or something like that, no name. That way, the tester doesn't have any preconceived ideas about what to look for, especially if they are asked to match a sample against a given substance (blood, for example, which can belong to either gender, as opposed to semen, which can only be from a male).
About the "girly-men" thing- an effeminate personality has no bearing on someone's genetic makeup. Effeminate men are still male XY. Even transgender "female" men are still men XY. That is Biology 101, and gender is permanent and absolute as far as DNA is concerned. Nothing can alter a person's DNA.
Those effeminate men would not be excluded (and were not excluded) from giving samples.
The lab would not care whether you were living as a man, boy, woman or kangaroo. They would simply test the sample and report the results.
My comment about a man posing as a woman was in GENERAL and I was not referring to anyone specifically with regard to this case. While people may have thought the men you mentioned were effeminate, they were KNOWN to be MEN. Even if one of the women that was tested was really a man, as Cynic pointed out, "her" sample would test with XY chromosomes and "she'd" have some explaining to do.

MurriFlower
08-18-2010, 07:23 PM
I'd say when samples are submitted, the proper way to submit would be gender-blind, with a reference number or something like that, no name. That way, the tester doesn't have any preconceived ideas about what to look for, especially if they are asked to match a sample against a given substance (blood, for example, which can belong to either gender, as opposed to semen, which can only be from a male).
About the "girly-men" thing- an effeminate personality has no bearing on someone's genetic makeup. Effeminate men are still male XY. Even transgender "female" men are still men XY. That is Biology 101, and gender is permanent and absolute as far as DNA is concerned. Nothing can alter a person's DNA.
Those effeminate men would not be excluded (and were not excluded) from giving samples.
The lab would not care whether you were living as a man, boy, woman or kangaroo. They would simply test the sample and report the results.
My comment about a man posing as a woman was in GENERAL and I was not referring to anyone specifically with regard to this case. While people may have thought the men you mentioned were effeminate, they were KNOWN to be MEN. Even if one of the women that was tested was really a man, as Cynic pointed out, "her" sample would test with XY chromosomes and "she'd" have some explaining to do.

DD I am not simple as you are trying to imply. I am aware that males are male regardless of how girly they might seem. My point was, that LE MAY have disregarded someone as a suspect, based on their supposed gender. I was asking what checks and balances were in place that would detect such a thing at the lab or at the LE.

Nothing you or cynic has said so far has convinced me that such an event could not occur.

If it were up to the BPD to compare DNA results and match them with donors, then I have no confidence at all. They would likely have been too busy trying to fit up the Rs to give it proper attention.

So, there is every possibility that the owner of the DNA found in incriminating areas on the body is amongst those tested already, but has been either overlooked or disregarded.

MurriFlower
08-18-2010, 07:28 PM
According to ACR, DNA samples were obtained from a number of females, including LHP.
So it would seem unlikely, although not impossible, that LE would not obtain a sample from anyone they considered relevant, regardless of gender.
Let’s look at this hypothetical, police have a suspect in the case named Patricia Smith and they proceed to do an oral/buccal swab to obtain a DNA sample. Regardless of the labeling, information from the DNA profile will look like this:

Patricia Smith
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (9, 9.3), (8,8), (11, 11), (X, Y)

If that profile were compared to:

Crime Scene profile
Locus: D3S1358, Vwa, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818
Genotype: (15, 18), (16, 16), (9, 24), (12, 13), (29, 31), (12, 13), (11, 13)

Locus: D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, AMEL
Genotype: (11, 11), (10, 10), (11, 11), (X, Y)

The match would be at 10 markers
A “hit” or match at those loci would result in an investigation, and whoever it matched would have some serious explaining to do. It would be at this stage that “Patricia” would be asked why "she" has the genetic makeup of a man, not to mention, why “her” profile matches a crime scene profile.

I still see possibilities for errors. Patricia Smith's DNA would have to have been compared with the "unknown male DNA" for this to be discovered. If there was a computer system that matched DNA with no human involvement, that might be more reliable. BUT my understanding is that CODIS (although computer based) only contains the DNA of SOME criminals, not all suspects DNA tested in EVERY investigation.

DeeDee249
08-18-2010, 07:28 PM
DD I am not simple as you are trying to imply. I am aware that males are male regardless of how girly they might seem. My point was, that LE MAY have disregarded someone as a suspect, based on their supposed gender. I was asking what checks and balances were in place that would detect such a thing at the lab or at the LE.

Nothing you or cynic has said so far has convinced me that such an event could not occur.

If it were up to the BPD to compare DNA results and match them with donors, then I have no confidence at all. They would likely have been too busy trying to fit up the Rs to give it proper attention.

So, there is every possibility that the owner of the DNA found in incriminating areas on the body is amongst those tested already, but has been either overlooked or disregarded.

I don't know why you thought I was implying you were "simple". I was not. The question was confusing, as is the subject matter. Many people might not know that men who have gone through any kind of gender reassignment would still test male. Could someone posing as a woman be overlooked because no one knew they were male? Certainly, as long as they kept their "secret" . :truce:

cynic
09-07-2010, 01:12 AM
For the record, I used to be a firm RDI, now I just don't know. I am into genetics and science and regard DNA as a HUGELY important piece of evidence in any case. So, now I lean towards IDI.
All evidence in a circumstantial case such as this is important. DNA is a piece of the puzzle but its weight is determined by the context of the remainder of the evidence and by the source of the DNA, with sources such as blood and semen carrying significant weight.
I have brought up the Janelle Patton case in the past on a number of occasions as an example where the DNA evidence, although seemingly important, was completely unrelated to the conclusion of the case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1)
The Noura Jackson case is another example.
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=9853461 (http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=9853461)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml)
The Casey Anthony case also has unexplained DNA in a very incriminating location.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmBoNzsRp0s
In these cases, the evidence as a whole was evaluated and a decision made as to whether the DNA was an important piece of the puzzle or whether it was there as a result of adventitious transfer.
In the JBR case, there is too much evidence pointing in the direction of the Ramseys to be set aside by the weak DNA evidence. IMO


What if it was tampered with? This "touch" DNA, how accurate is it? The results have been fiddled with to put it into CODIS. Now exactly how did they do that and come up with the markers? Was it just guesswork?
The touch DNA (from the long johns) in this case has been used as corroborating evidence. We don’t know how many markers it has and therefore it’s difficult to characterize its importance.
The profile in CODIS is from the minor profile in the mixed profile derived from the DNA in JBR’s panties. According to one of the Ramsey attorneys the profile originally was determined to have 9 ½ markers. Later after they made a judgment call on the area in dispute it was deemed to have 10 markers and consequently submitted to CODIS by virtue of meeting the minimum standard.
Mixed profiles can be difficult to analyze, and when dealing with a weak or degraded sample, it can be extremely problematic and indeed involve some educated “guesswork.”

“If you show 10 colleagues a mixture, you will probably end up with 10 different answers”
– Peter Gill, Human Identification E-Symposium, April 14, 2005
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/pub_pres/AAFS2006_mixtures.pdf (http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/pub_pres/AAFS2006_mixtures.pdf)
The above details some of the issues involving mixture analysis.
Below is some more information that may interest you.

Dan Krane speaks to the issue of DNA transfer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU-MmAeH-gs

Further regarding touch DNA, these are the comments of an experienced Crime Scene Investigator:

"Touch DNA?" My understanding is that this is no different than DNA taken from a swab of a door handle, the trigger of a handgun, the handle of a knife, and on and on. It is DNA analysis from skin cells, which has been a primary venue, to my knowledge, since 1996. At least that is the first forensic case I had in which a profile was gotten from skin cells from an object. If this is the case, there is nothing new and the article is sensationalizing the analysis. I noticed that the news article stated that the "touch DNA" produced the same profile as the previous DNA analysis of the panties. Hence, there is no new information corroborated by the news release. Why now, does the analysis exonerate any family member, and it didn't in 1996. Wouldn't one expect to find additional sources from skin cells consistent with those from the crotch on the underwear?

It is a common phenomenon that there are unidentified DNA profiles, particularly mixed profiles, in many DNA analyses. As an example, the steering wheel of an automobile often produces mixtures. I have seen mixtures from the underwear, often, of sexual assault victims. It is further not uncommon to not be able to identify some of the profiles. I currently have four "John Doe" sexual assault warrants active with full 16 value DNA profiles in CODIS. They have been there for about 5 years. I have yet to receive a hit on any of those profiles. These are all from the underwear of sexual assault victims. Thus, unidentified DNA on underwear is not uncommon.

The third fallacy in the reasoning is that lack of DNA of a family member and an unidentified DNA profile does not exonerate any one person. DNA, standing alone, does not prove nor disprove involvement in a crime. It only can lead to a reasonable inference that a given persons DNA was not on a given object or was on a given object. It is the other information in a consilient relationship that leads to the probable cause of the involvement of a given person(s) in a crime.

As a final note. I know of four cases from my limited case work in which nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA did not match. How did this happen. In two cases there was a link between probable lab cross contamination. This was verified by a DNA lab analyst statement (a very mature and professional position, by the way by the analysts). The third case was a suspected intentional switch of samples by a disgruntled lab analyst. This case was never resolved by legal mitigation, but the lab analyst left for another position. The fourth case is in the unknown bin. Within the last five years I worked a case in which a substrate had been examined by a state forensic lab with the results that the object contained no DNA and no blood source. The same object, a piece of clothing, was sent to the FBI and the result from the FBI analysis was that there was not blood and no source for DNA. As a result of cold case funds, the item was dug out of storage and treated with fluorescein. A few small spots reacted. These spots were swabbed and sent in for DNA analysis. A full DNA profile was obtained from these swabs. Further, a CODIS match was obtained from these swabs. The CODIS match was from a totally unknown source to the original investigation. The point is that DNA is a very powerful investigative technique, but there are many issues with DNA. Primarily, as we are coming to find out, the primarily issues have to do with the origin of the DNA which at the very minimum requires additional corroboration of the probability of the source contributing as an actor in a given criminal event.

It can be inferred that the recent press release is an effort to manipulate the investigation towards a specific insinuated conclusion. I see it as the effort of a prosecutorial office to conspire to wipe egg from the messy faces of past feedings on uncorroborated information.

Respectfully,

Larry Barksdale
Adjunct Associate Professor of Practice of Forensic Science
http://forensic-training-network.com/hub/showthread.php?p=239 (http://forensic-training-network.com/hub/showthread.php?p=239)

Crime lab officials here and elsewhere don't like to talk about the fact that the same test that can link someone to a crime scene with a few minuscule cells left on a doorknob can also be contaminated by a passing sneeze. Or that DNA tests are only as reliable as the humans doing them -- a troubling prospect when dealing with evidence that has the power to exonerate suspects or imprison them for life.
"The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible," said William C. Thompson, a forensic expert and professor of criminology and law at the University of California-Irvine, who reviewed the incidents at the request of the P-I.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html)

Highly sensitive tests require a great deal of care in evidence collection, handling and storage.
What precautions were taken in the Ramsey case, or any case in the 90’s, when the potential for contamination and cross-contamination involving skin cells was not known?
This is from a recent interview between Evidence Technology Magazine and Joe Minor-Technical DNA Manager & Special Agent-Forensic Scientist Supervisor, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation:

EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: When you teach classes for crime-scene investigators, what are some of the key points in DNA collection that you cover?
MINOR: I talk to them about basic concepts, like proper recognition and preservation of the evidence. We discuss the fundamentals of packaging biological evidence and how that should be packaged in breathable containers. And everything needs to be packaged separately. Even if they think that it is the victim’s clothes and it is all the victim’s blood and it wouldn’t hurt to package a few of those similar items together… I say: Stop and think about that. Don’t do it. Package everything separately so there is no cross-transfer.

EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: The technology you are using is getting very sensitive, isn’t it?
MINOR: Yes—which brings up another thing that I tell folks about changing their gloves frequently to prevent cross-contamination. It is pretty well understood that when you are at a scene collecting bloody items, you don’t want to touch something, get blood on the gloves, and then handle another item. Everybody knows that. But now we need to start thinking about skin cells. If you are wearing a glove and you handle something that may have been handled by somebody else, you may need to think about changing gloves before you touch the next item. As a matter of fact, if you put on a pair of clean gloves and you inadvertently bring your finger up and scratch your face or nose, then your skin cells are going to be on that glove, and that can go to the next item you touch, as well.
EVIDENCE TECHNOLOGY: How about fingerprint brushes? Can they cause cross-contamination of DNA?
MINOR: Well, that’s a very good question. As a matter of fact, one point in our laboratory’s policy states that items that have been processed for latent prints will not be examined for touch DNA. Most people are not using disposable brushes, from what we understand. The problem with that is going to be if you dust with a brush that has dusted blood samples from a previous case and it gets transferred to an item. If you are lucky enough to get a DNA profile from that item, it could be very problematic because then you have a profile that might not match the suspect because it really came from another crime.
http://www.evidencemagazine.com/inde...d=160&Itemid=9 (http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160&Itemid=9)

and…

Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA (125 cells may be adequate to get a full profile), there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf (http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf)


The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate

This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.

We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer. In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
-Graham Williams
http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php (http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php)

tragco
09-07-2010, 11:01 AM
TY for bumping this thread, Cynic. Lots of hours of research ahead.

I found an interesting DNA article that explains different types of DNA testing, their results, and possible errors. It bills itself as an introduction for non-scientists but IMO you do need quite a bit of biology background to catch everything the article goes over.

mea culpa if this link has been posted already, I have not gone through the entire thread YET.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html (http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html)

Since I also think the author of any article is important to examine, here's info on that:

http://depts.washington.edu/uroweb/directory/bios/riley.html (http://depts.washington.edu/uroweb/directory/bios/riley.html)

This was an interesting tidbit:

Partial Profiles

Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend. A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. For example, if 13 loci were targeted, and only 9 could be reported, that would be termed, a partial profile. Failure of all targeted loci to show up demonstrates a serious deficiency in the sample. Normally, all human cells (except red blood cells and cells called "platelets") have all 13 loci. Therefore, a partial profile represents the equivalent of less than a single human cell. This presents some important problems:

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.

2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.

3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike. It could be said that, compared to the first PCR-based tests introduced into the courts, use of partial profiles represents a decline in standards. This is because those earlier tests, while less discriminating, had controls (known as "control dots") that helped prevent the use of partial profiles. The earlier tests will be discussed below, primarily for historic reasons, but also because they do still appear on occasion.

cynic
09-07-2010, 08:50 PM
TY for bumping this thread, Cynic. Lots of hours of research ahead.

I found an interesting DNA article that explains different types of DNA testing, their results, and possible errors. It bills itself as an introduction for non-scientists but IMO you do need quite a bit of biology background to catch everything the article goes over.

mea culpa if this link has been posted already, I have not gone through the entire thread YET.

I posted that link a while ago, but not on this thread.
Still, well worthy of re-posting.
Here is another very good introductory article which is reasonably non-technical.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPubsPDF.php?facID=5705&pubID=10 (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPubsPDF.php?facID=5705&pubID=10)

madeleine
09-08-2010, 06:32 AM
Hey cynic,
wanted to ask ,what do you think of JAR's DNA found on the blanket in the suitcase
and
do you think it's possible that JB was wiped off with that blanket?

DeeDee249
09-08-2010, 09:09 PM
Hey cynic,
wanted to ask ,what do you think of JAR's DNA found on the blanket in the suitcase
and
do you think it's possible that JB was wiped off with that blanket?

That blanket WAS dark (reported as black or dark blue) and dark fibers were found on JB's thighs and pubic area, also reported as black or dark blue. Pity they weren't tested against that blanket. So many questions would be answered that way. Is the blanket in evidence? The fibers should still be. How about it, new Boulder DA? Let's run a test.

cynic
09-08-2010, 10:05 PM
Hey cynic,
wanted to ask ,what do you think of JAR's DNA found on the blanket in the suitcase
and
do you think it's possible that JB was wiped off with that blanket?
Well, a 20 year old college student’s semen found most anywhere wouldn’t be all that surprising.
I would find it quite a bit more suspicious if he didn’t have such a seemingly good alibi (from the out-of-town ATM transaction.)
I don’t think the blanket was used to wipe JBR, although I certainly don’t know what was used.
The UV light examination of JBR showed the presence of smeared body fluid which turned out to be smeared blood.
This would then have to be on the blanket if it was used to wipe her.
Whatever was used to wipe JBR should have blood from JBR on it and be consistent with the fiber evidence that was found.
As DeeDee has suggested, it's entirely possible that the only forensic test on the blanket was the DNA test on the semen stain.
If no further fiber or DNA testing was done, that would be unfortunate.
JR's robe was also considered a possibility by many in the past, although, once again, we have no idea what tests, if any, were done on that item.

madeleine
09-09-2010, 02:51 AM
Re the alibi,I think I agree with those who find it a bit suspicious that he kept the ATM ticket and if I recall correctly was it a movie ticket too?Who keeps that?
Sometimes I wonder why his ex wife and JAR needed an extra lawyer but this could have an innocent explanation,to stop bothering them with questions about JR.But who knows.

MurriFlower
09-09-2010, 03:11 AM
Well, a 20 year old college student’s semen found most anywhere wouldn’t be all that surprising.
I would find it quite a bit more suspicious if he didn’t have such a seemingly good alibi (from the out-of-town ATM transaction.)
I don’t think the blanket was used to wipe JBR, although I certainly don’t know what was used.
The UV light examination of JBR showed the presence of smeared body fluid which turned out to be smeared blood.
This would then have to be on the blanket if it was used to wipe her.
Whatever was used to wipe JBR should have blood from JBR on it and be consistent with the fiber evidence that was found.
As DeeDee has suggested, it's entirely possible that the only forensic test on the blanket was the DNA test on the semen stain.
If no further fiber or DNA testing was done, that would be unfortunate.
JR's robe was also considered a possibility by many in the past, although, once again, we have no idea what tests, if any, were done on that item.

I wonder why no comment has ever been made (except by me as far as I know) about the blue cloth on the floor next to the toilet in the basement? Someone commented that she had blue fibers on her, so I'm guessing that this is where it's from. Is this another piece of evidence that has been withheld?

http://www.acandyrose.com/bathroom-toilet-x.gif

see it circled in red on the RHS.

DeeDee249
09-09-2010, 08:49 PM
Re the alibi,I think I agree with those who find it a bit suspicious that he kept the ATM ticket and if I recall correctly was it a movie ticket too?Who keeps that?
Sometimes I wonder why his ex wife and JAR needed an extra lawyer but this could have an innocent explanation,to stop bothering them with questions about JR.But who knows.

If MY 6-year-old daughter had been killed, I wouldn't consider the police questioning my relatives "bothering them". And neither would my relatives feel they were being bothered. Hey, 'ya want the killer found or not? Let the police talk to whoever they want to. UNLESS, of course, you have something to HIDE. To me, the only reason those two (JAR and his mother) needed lawyers was so that police WOULDN'T question them. The lawyers were hired solely to prevent that from happening. Especially for the ex-wife. As someone who was not present in Boulder and not ever considered a suspect, she had no good reason NOT to talk to police. Her lawyer was to stop police from asking questions she didn't want to answer, and that could only have been about her son.
I am wondering whether she was called before the GJ, where lawyers would not have been able to prevent her from being asked to answer or provide photo proof if possible, of JAR's presence in Atlanta on Christmas.

tragco
09-12-2010, 03:20 AM
I've finally completed my research on the DNA in this case and am ready to make some observations and even a theory. It's a long post but I did a lot of research. Thank you to all the posters that provided links and information. I would appreciate it if anyone would point out inaccuracies, flaws, etc., and please provide a link if you can. If it's just theory with no link, that would be great too!

Goodbye fingernail DNA. As I said on another thread, it was contaminated.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html)

snip: Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.

With DNA testing and especially with only partial markers, it is very easy to exclude someone but not as easy to include someone. This is, of course, with the understanding that the testing is done absolutely correctly with no errors. If that is the case, you could exclude someone based only on ONE marker. In real life DNA profiling, the more profiles in a sample, the harder it is to be accurate. Even with only two profiles, studies show that valid markers are missed and invalid ones can be invented. The fewer cells one gets from a sample, the easier it is to contaminate them. Also, the less DNA in the sample of a second minor contributor, the more likely an error will occur.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html)
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html (http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html)

There is no way in this case that the DNA testing in three different places can be shown to be proof of a third party intruder. It's possible, maybe even likely; but anyone stating that it's clear proof is uninformed IMO. Below is why:

Initial 1997 DNA was conducted on a contaminated blood spot.

SIX years later, in 2003, a second blood spot was examined- a blood spot with the major contributor being JonBenet, and an unknown minor contributor on the panties ruling out the parents. A 9 1/2 point marker was obtained. Pretty good data, IF accurate to find someone. However, at this time, the minor contributor DNA was easily ruled out as any definitive profile of any supposed intruder. Why? Because it was not a complete profile, because of the above mentioned possibility of error, and because of a test that was done:
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/ (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/)

snip: Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture. In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

ELEVEN years later, a revelation. Touch DNA is obtained from two places on the long johns, and it MATCHES the DNA profile from 5 years ago. This is huge. This is major. I was convinced. Well, I'm not anymore. Here's why:
There was some back and forth about whether or not the itsy bitsy sample (more likely to be contaminated when examined) eleven years old (that's a long time, degradation is inevitable) was from a single person or from two or more. I haven't found any article that tells me just how many but I am certain there are at the very least two.

See post 39. This was captured as a screenshot on a 48 hours special. This was enlarged and doctored though, so I'm not providing it as definitive proof:
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578


IMO, there are at the very least two and possibly more. My theory is based on interviews and also on experiments showing how incredibly easy it is to pass touch DNA from person to person, and even one person touching them coud easily have touch DNA from someone that shook their hand earlier, sneezed near them, et.al.

I have not been able to find anyone who has obtained this information. Why not? Also, I have seen nothing showing how many markers from this touch DNA match the original partial 9 1/2 marker profile. Is it 1? 2? only 3? How many? If this information isn't given to us, again I ask: Why not?

This information was brought forth, grandly, on a gold platter to prove innocence. SO WHY AREN'T WE GIVEN THESE BASIC ANSWERS NECESSARY TO CORRECTLY ANALYZE THE RESULTS?

SuperDave tried. He posted their answer: We ain't tellin, its none of your business. (OK I admit thats not what they said. But the answers were refused).

Couple more observations, one copied from a thread poster I just thought was great: "Not testing the ligature in a strangulation case is the same as not testing a gun in a shooting case. Incredible." I am pretty sure that was Cynic and it's important to my theory just because that one statement shows and encompasses all the horrible errors and incomplete testing done.

The second observation is that I do not believe this statement from Wood prior to the touch DNA discovery:
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/ (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/)

snip: Wood...contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.

I cannot find any actual analysis of the nails, but there are tons of articles that refer to only two, maybe three, markers being found. I also think he knew that evidence was contaminated.

Here is my theory: Remember that six years had passed before the first "unknown" DNA profile was revealed. Five years after that, touch DNA is found. I think that this was such a highly public case, and there were so many people who wanted to solve it and examine the evidence. In 1997, there was an understanding that DNA would only be coming from a stain like blood and semen. The other item would be fingerprints, and I hope I'm correct in assuming none were found. That means an intruder wore gloves. He did not have sex with JonBenet, why take his gloves off?

IMO, the touch DNA is from some police officer or person involved with the case that picked up and handled the evidence. Even with gloves. Wipe your nose, rub your chin thinking, sneeze. He put the DNA there. He's never been tested to see if his DNA is a match. It was eleven years ago and they never even tested basic evidence, you think they'd test for this kind of contamination??

I am not sure it was an intruder anymore. I am back to 80% convinced RDI.

madeleine
09-12-2010, 03:33 AM
Hey guys,question.
So if I understand correctly it's very easy for touch DNA to be depostied anywhere and you claim it could have been anyone who touched JB's clothing (and then it got transfered on other pieces).Right?
This makes me wonder,how come did they find DNA belonging only to mr.X (alledged intruder)?
JB's DNA must be there,PR's DNA must be there,LHP's DNA must be there,JR's DNA must be there.Okay,their DNA is not relevant,they lived there.
What about other people though,if touch DNA gets transfered so easily I would expect them to find more of it from more unknown persons.

madeleine
09-12-2010, 03:39 AM
IMO, the touch DNA is from some police officer or person involved with the case that picked up and handled the evidence. Even with gloves. Wipe your nose, rub your chin thinking, sneeze. He put the DNA there. He's never been tested to see if his DNA is a match. It was eleven years ago and they never even tested basic evidence, you think they'd test for this kind of contamination??



IIRC the CBI (not Bode)helped ML eliminate all these people as the dna owner(LE,those present at the autopsy).
Now I don't trust ML but I guess the CBI is different.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/bocoda.aspx?articleid=1256&zoneid=13

tragco
09-12-2010, 03:43 AM
Hey guys,question.
So if I understand correctly it's very easy for touch DNA to be depostied anywhere and you claim it could have been anyone who touched JB's clothing (and then it got transfered on other pieces).Right?
This makes me wonder,how come did they find DNA belonging only to mr.X (alledged intruder)?
JB's DNA must be there,PR's DNA must be there,LHP's DNA must be there,JR's DNA must be there.Okay,their DNA is not relevant,they lived there.
What about other people though,if touch DNA gets transfered so easily I would expect them to find more of it from more unknown persons.

That's the thing. We don't know how many people they think they found and the researchers aren't telling. The more people's DNA involved, the more error-prone it is. You have 5 years until the first really good profile, then another 6 until the touch DNA. Maybe they had so many markers that they were asked to analyze it to find a match to Mr. X.

That's quite possible to do if you are looking for only a few DNA loci markers and have several people's DNA to choose from.

I genuinely think there is a chance they match, though. All from one person who sometime in the first 5 years didn't take the appropriate precautions when he/she handled the evidence.

tragco
09-12-2010, 03:46 AM
IIRC the CBI (not Bode)helped ML eliminate all these people as the dna owner(LE,those present at the autopsy).
Now I don't trust ML but I guess the CBI is different.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/bocoda.aspx?articleid=1256&zoneid=13

Oh, now this is interesting. They DO say that extensive testing was done with people connected to the investigation. That would toss my theory out.

DeeDee249
09-12-2010, 04:43 PM
Hey guys,question.
So if I understand correctly it's very easy for touch DNA to be depostied anywhere and you claim it could have been anyone who touched JB's clothing (and then it got transfered on other pieces).Right?
This makes me wonder,how come did they find DNA belonging only to mr.X (alledged intruder)?
JB's DNA must be there,PR's DNA must be there,LHP's DNA must be there,JR's DNA must be there.Okay,their DNA is not relevant,they lived there.
What about other people though,if touch DNA gets transfered so easily I would expect them to find more of it from more unknown persons.

The apparent lack of mention of findings of parental DNA on JB's clothing can mean any of of a few possibilities.
One, that this DNA does exist, but because whoever is in control of this evidence does not want this information to be made public, it has not been revealed. This person preventing this could be LW, or another defense attorney, and not necessarily the DA or other LE.
Two, is that it is NOT there, because they wore gloves when handling her and her panties and longjohns. Absolutely NO innocent reason for a parent to do this. They BOTH said they touched the longjohns. Patsy said she dressed JB in the longjohns,but tellingly she never mentions the panties. ANY mother seeing such a poorly-fitting pair of panties on a child (especially one known to wet the bed) would have changed them as well.
As for JR, he was SEEN to be holding JB around the waist while she was wearing the longjohns as he carried her stiffened body up from the basement, so the lack of mention of HIS DNA leads me to think it is the first theory, that it is there, but that information is being repressed.

tragco
09-12-2010, 04:55 PM
Oh, now this is interesting. They DO say that extensive testing was done with people connected to the investigation. That would toss my theory out.

Ok Madeleine, 70% RDI. :) Seriously, thank you so much for reading my LONG post and giving your input. It is so much appreciated. That link was great and gave so much info. I am going to tackle the fiber evidence next.

whew. See ya'll in about a week maybe?

DeeDee249
09-12-2010, 05:32 PM
I would hope morgue workers are routinely ruled out on evidence, but let's face it- Mayer's autopsy procedures are already KNOWN to be sloppy and unsterile. And we don't know if it was ONLY the morgue workers who were tested, or if they tested against every male LE who was in and around the crime scene- but I bet they didn't.

Hey, you know who I'd like to see tested against that male DNA?
Remember that creepy kid who worked for the morgue, transporting bodies? He stole the morgue log that had the time of entry for JB, and I believe he posted the information or tried to sell it or something like that. Don't remember his name, but he would be exactly the kind of disgusting creep who would pull down JB's clothing or (shudder at the thought) touch her corpse.
THAT would certainly explain why the male DNA exists only on those two items of clothing.

cynic
09-12-2010, 05:54 PM
I would hope morgue workers are routinely ruled out on evidence, but let's face it- Mayer's autopsy procedures are already KNOWN to be sloppy and unsterile. And we don't know if it was ONLY the morgue workers who were tested, or if they tested against every male LE who was in and around the crime scene- but I bet they didn't.

Hey, you know who I'd like to see tested against that male DNA?
Remember that creepy kid who worked for the morgue, transporting bodies? He stole the morgue log that had the time of entry for JB, and I believe he posted the information or tried to sell it or something like that. Don't remember his name, but he would be exactly the kind of disgusting creep who would pull down JB's clothing or (shudder at the thought) touch her corpse.
THAT would certainly explain why the male DNA exists only on those two items of clothing.
That is a very good point, DeeDee.
I recall Dr. Baden speaking about this issue.
If someone did do something like that, they are obviously not going to come forward and admit to it.

Here is one example of a serial abuser:
A former morgue worker already in prison for having sex with a body awaiting autopsy was indicted Thursday on two more charges of sexually abusing corpses.
The latest charges against 55-year-old Kenneth Douglas of Cincinnati accuse him of assaulting two women's bodies at the Hamilton County morgue in 1991.
Douglas, an attendant at the morgue from 1976 to 1992, was convicted last year of having sex with the body of a teenage murder victim in 1982. He is serving a three-year prison sentence, which includes 18 months for corpse abuse and 18 months for a parole violation on an unrelated drug conviction.
Prosecutor Joe Deters said Thursday the case is "just beyond belief" and that the new charges are based on DNA testing. He said there is not enough evidence left to determine whether more corpses may have been abused because DNA evidence wasn't saved in many cases.
Deters said he suspects Douglas had more victims during the 16 years he worked at the county morgue. The numbers Douglas gave investigators in interviews ranged from one to possibly more than 100, Deters said.
"I'm sure there are more," he said. "I'm certain of it, but we'll never be able to prove it."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/02/28/2009-02-28_necrophilia_charges_mount_for_former_mor.html

cynic
09-12-2010, 07:38 PM
Hey guys,question.
So if I understand correctly it's very easy for touch DNA to be depostied anywhere and you claim it could have been anyone who touched JB's clothing (and then it got transfered on other pieces).Right?
This makes me wonder,how come did they find DNA belonging only to mr.X (alledged intruder)?
JB's DNA must be there,PR's DNA must be there,LHP's DNA must be there,JR's DNA must be there.Okay,their DNA is not relevant,they lived there.
What about other people though,if touch DNA gets transfered so easily I would expect them to find more of it from more unknown persons.
Whether or not a usable profile is found from touch DNA is dependent on a number of factors.

The shedder profile of a person. Are they a good shedder, in other words do they have a tendency to leave more of their DNA and pick up very little, or are they a poor shedder that leaves little of their own DNA and picks up significant foreign DNA?
The length of contact with a particular object?
The pressure of contact with a particular object?
Do they wash their hands frequently or infrequently?
Do they have a tendency to contact their face frequently or infrequently?
Do they have a tendency to “spray” when speaking?
The type of surface involved, is it textured or smooth?
Is the environment hot or humid and likely to cause rapid degradation?
Are there biological elements in play that may cause rapid degradation?

With all that in mind you must also remember that DNA is sampled in such a way as to try to minimize the area involved and, therefore, minimize the amount of “stray” DNA donors being found.
Unless PR was a very poor shedder, or wearing gloves, I see no reason, whatsoever, why her profile would not be on the long johns at least.
JR was said to have held JBR around the waist, but we don’t know specifically if he made contact with the waistband area of the long johns. If he did then, again, unless he was a very poor shedder his DNA should have been found.
The big unknown, in my mind, is what Bode was asked to do.
They may have been asked, is there any evidence that the intruder, whose profile is in CODIS, made contact with the long johns in the waistband area.
If that were the case, they would simply look for the markers from the CODIS profile, and if they found some of them would report to Lacy that, yes, there was evidence of contact.
They would need to be supplied with known DNA profiles from LE, Ramsey family members etc. to have further conclusions about what other profiles there might be once “innocent” sources were eliminated.

cynic
09-12-2010, 08:10 PM
Goodbye fingernail DNA. As I said on another thread, it was contaminated.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html)

snip: Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.
I agree, and as I’ve mentioned before, a two marker “profile” is not a profile.



With DNA testing and especially with only partial markers, it is very easy to exclude someone but not as easy to include someone. This is, of course, with the understanding that the testing is done absolutely correctly with no errors. If that is the case, you could exclude someone based only on ONE marker. In real life DNA profiling, the more profiles in a sample, the harder it is to be accurate. Even with only two profiles, studies show that valid markers are missed and invalid ones can be invented. The fewer cells one gets from a sample, the easier it is to contaminate them. Also, the less DNA in the sample of a second minor contributor, the more likely an error will occur.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html)
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html (http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html)

There is no way in this case that the DNA testing in three different places can be shown to be proof of a third party intruder. It's possible, maybe even likely; but anyone stating that it's clear proof is uninformed IMO. Below is why:
Absolutely.


I have not been able to find anyone who has obtained this information. Why not? Also, I have seen nothing showing how many markers from this touch DNA match the original partial 9 1/2 marker profile. Is it 1? 2? only 3? How many? If this information isn't given to us, again I ask: Why not?

This information was brought forth, grandly, on a gold platter to prove innocence. SO WHY AREN'T WE GIVEN THESE BASIC ANSWERS NECESSARY TO CORRECTLY ANALYZE THE RESULTS?

SuperDave tried. He posted their answer: We ain't tellin, its none of your business. (OK I admit thats not what they said. But the answers were refused).
The vague information is tantalizing and certainly leaves you wanting more.
It is technically an open case and as such, LE and the DA’s office should not be releasing significant information, although it certainly didn’t seem to matter much in the early going.
Bode Technology Group is a private lab under obligation only to the person(s) paying them for their services. They have no obligation, whatsoever, to comment on any of their work.
While frustrating, I don’t see any more information forthcoming unless some media agencies or tabloids start throwing money around for information, and, unfortunately, they seem to be content to swallow the line that Lacy fed them.


Couple more observations, one copied from a thread poster I just thought was great: "Not testing the ligature in a strangulation case is the same as not testing a gun in a shooting case. Incredible." I am pretty sure that was Cynic and it's important to my theory just because that one statement shows and encompasses all the horrible errors and incomplete testing done.
Yes, that was my comment.


The second observation is that I do not believe this statement from Wood prior to the touch DNA discovery:
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/ (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/)

snip: Wood...contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.

I cannot find any actual analysis of the nails, but there are tons of articles that refer to only two, maybe three, markers being found. I also think he knew that evidence was contaminated.
I don’t believe it either; I do believe Lou Smit when he said in a deposition that it was two markers.


Here is my theory: Remember that six years had passed before the first "unknown" DNA profile was revealed. Five years after that, touch DNA is found. I think that this was such a highly public case, and there were so many people who wanted to solve it and examine the evidence. In 1997, there was an understanding that DNA would only be coming from a stain like blood and semen. The other item would be fingerprints, and I hope I'm correct in assuming none were found. That means an intruder wore gloves. He did not have sex with JonBenet, why take his gloves off?

IMO, the touch DNA is from some police officer or person involved with the case that picked up and handled the evidence. Even with gloves. Wipe your nose, rub your chin thinking, sneeze. He put the DNA there. He's never been tested to see if his DNA is a match. It was eleven years ago and they never even tested basic evidence, you think they'd test for this kind of contamination??
Your theory is a valid possibility. We do have “assurance” from Lacy that “everyone” was tested, but I’m afraid that I’m not convinced.
Were all people who may have been speaking near the evidence tested, or just those who may have handled it?
Were all of JBR’s and BR’s childhood friends, including those who may have been in from out of town tested?
Were some of Ramseys' defense attorneys, private investigators and defense experts that may have been in contact with or near the evidence tested? We know that members of the Ramsey team were allowed to look at the original ransom note as well as the ligature. That is something that we know of, what about other possible backroom deals between the DA and team Ramsey?
Was the possibility that the DNA may have been from a decedent that Dr Meyer handled prior to JBR checked out?

cynic
09-12-2010, 08:28 PM
IIRC the CBI (not Bode)helped ML eliminate all these people as the dna owner(LE,those present at the autopsy).
Now I don't trust ML but I guess the CBI is different.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

I commented on this with respect to tragco's post, (post #330 above.)

cynic
09-12-2010, 08:41 PM
Oh, now this is interesting. They DO say that extensive testing was done with people connected to the investigation. That would toss my theory out.
Your theory remains valid; it would be interesting to see the list of persons tested, though.

DeeDee249
09-12-2010, 09:08 PM
I agree, and as I’ve mentioned before, a two marker “profile” is not a profile.

Absolutely.
The vague information is tantalizing and certainly leaves you wanting more.
It is technically an open case and as such, LE and the DA’s office should not be releasing significant information, although it certainly didn’t seem to matter much in the early going.
Bode Technology Group is a private lab under obligation only to the person(s) paying them for their services. They have no obligation, whatsoever, to comment on any of their work.
While frustrating, I don’t see any more information forthcoming unless some media agencies or tabloids start throwing money around for information, and, unfortunately, they seem to be content to swallow the line that Lacy fed them.
Yes, that was my comment.
I don’t believe it either; I do believe Lou Smit when he said in a deposition that it was two markers.
Your theory is a valid possibility. We do have “assurance” from Lacy that “everyone” was tested, but I’m afraid that I’m not convinced.
Were all people who may have been speaking near the evidence tested, or just those who may have handled it?
Were all of JBR’s and BR’s childhood friends, including those who may have been in from out of town tested?
Were some of Ramseys' defense attorneys, private investigators and defense experts that may have been in contact with or near the evidence tested? We know that members of the Ramsey team were allowed to look at the original ransom note as well as the ligature. That is something that we know of, what about other possible backroom deals between the DA and team Ramsey?
Was the possibility that the DNA may have been from a decedent that Dr Meyer handled prior to JBR checked out?

I don't believe any decedent Mayer may have used those same nail clippers on was tested for a match. This would have been difficult to do, as most bodies are then returned to family for burial or cremation. And we don't know how many corpses he used them on before JB. We don't know how often he sterilized them or what method he used to do so. Had there been a trial and had there been a prosecutor with an actual spine to put a fellow Boulder employee on the stand to question, we would know the answer. But I doubt Mayer would have been thrilled to have to explain his lack of adherence to proper procedures.
Think of the legal, logistical and practical problems involved in disinterring every corpse those clippers touched to test, if that was even possible. Think of trying to get permission from family of the deceased and picture spineless DA getting warrants to do so. Then, the one body holding the clue may he the one that was cremated.

madeleine
09-13-2010, 03:03 AM
The big unknown, in my mind, is what Bode was asked to do.
They may have been asked, is there any evidence that the intruder, whose profile is in CODIS, made contact with the long johns in the waistband area.
If that were the case, they would simply look for the markers from the CODIS profile, and if they found some of them would report to Lacy that, yes, there was evidence of contact.
They would need to be supplied with known DNA profiles from LE, Ramsey family members etc. to have further conclusions about what other profiles there might be once “innocent” sources were eliminated.

Yes but IMO this isn't looking for the truth ,it's looking for a certain piece of it,who might be contradicted by other pieces who were not tested.
IMO it's the same with what ST did and made me so angry.
It's not "we have this evidence,let's see to whom it leads us"....
it's "we have X(who might be very well innocent) and let's see what evidence we can find to pin this on him/her".

cynic
09-13-2010, 09:43 PM
I don't believe any decedent Mayer may have used those same nail clippers on was tested for a match. This would have been difficult to do, as most bodies are then returned to family for burial or cremation. And we don't know how many corpses he used them on before JB. We don't know how often he sterilized them or what method he used to do so. Had there been a trial and had there been a prosecutor with an actual spine to put a fellow Boulder employee on the stand to question, we would know the answer. But I doubt Mayer would have been thrilled to have to explain his lack of adherence to proper procedures.

What I was suggesting was more along the lines of what DNA labs go through, audits to determine if proper procedures, policies and safeguards are in place.
What exactly were Meyers’ practices in the morgue, did he use the same gloves between decedents, how frequently did he sterilize instruments etc.
Was JBR his first autopsy that day?
The answers would give some insight into the probability of contamination.
Regardless, not only is it possible that the DNA “match” in the JBR case was a from a previous decedent who is now dead and buried/cremated, but the other possible scenarios that been discussed also make Lacy’s statement that “there can be no innocent explanation,” ludicrous.

I came across this case where a coroner admitted that the most probable explanation for DNA that was unrelated to the case came from the decedent that immediately preceded his examination of the victim in the case.

Crime scene investigators collected scrapings from Roy Woodley's fingernails and found DNA from Dallas Mossey. That might indicate that Roy Woodley fought back against an attack from Mossey. But there's a catch.
Mossey died in a motorcycle crash the same day the Woodleys died and coroners conducted an autopsy on him right before Roy Woodley's.
The coroner admits, the DNA in Woodley's nails may have come from the previous autopsy.
"There's always a chance of cross-contamination, especially with if we do bodies on the same day," Dr. Gopal said.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7363423

DeeDee249
09-13-2010, 10:07 PM
What I was suggesting was more along the lines of what DNA labs go through, audits to determine if proper procedures, policies and safeguards are in place.
What exactly were Meyers’ practices in the morgue, did he use the same gloves between decedents, how frequently did he sterilize instruments etc.
Was JBR his first autopsy that day?
The answers would give some insight into the probability of contamination.
Regardless, not only is it possible that the DNA “match” in the JBR case was a from a previous decedent who is now dead and buried/cremated, but the other possible scenarios that been discussed also make Lacy’s statement that “there can be no innocent explanation,” ludicrous.

I came across this case where a coroner admitted that the most probable explanation for DNA that was unrelated to the case came from the decedent that immediately preceded his examination of the victim in the case.

Crime scene investigators collected scrapings from Roy Woodley's fingernails and found DNA from Dallas Mossey. That might indicate that Roy Woodley fought back against an attack from Mossey. But there's a catch.
Mossey died in a motorcycle crash the same day the Woodleys died and coroners conducted an autopsy on him right before Roy Woodley's.
The coroner admits, the DNA in Woodley's nails may have come from the previous autopsy.
"There's always a chance of cross-contamination, especially with if we do bodies on the same day," Dr. Gopal said.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7363423


JB's "male DNA" could have had exactly the same source. A previous decedent. While JB was autopsied at 8 AM that say and was likely the first autopsy of that day, the unsterile nail clippers could have been used the previous day, and actually I think we must consider that they WERE in fact, used previous to being used on JB. Under oath on the stand, Mayer could have been grilled on his sanitary procedures in the morgue, and been asked to explain his reasons for using unsterile clippers on a child murder victim where DNA under her fingernails would be expected to have a direct impact on the case. Unfortunately, he was never asked any of those questions. And I doubt he'd volunteer the answers.

Ames
09-13-2010, 10:59 PM
I wonder why no comment has ever been made (except by me as far as I know) about the blue cloth on the floor next to the toilet in the basement? Someone commented that she had blue fibers on her, so I'm guessing that this is where it's from. Is this another piece of evidence that has been withheld?

http://www.acandyrose.com/bathroom-toilet-x.gif

see it circled in red on the RHS.

Okay, I will admit...I have never seen that before. Very observant of you MF.

But...it is possible that the blue fibers came from John's blue robe...

"Dark-toned fabric. Police noticed navy blue pillings - or fuzzy balls from cloth - on JonBenet's lower body, sources said. Investigators later found John Ramsey's dark-colored bathrobe on the floor of his home office next to a desk, sources said. "Some of the police thought the pillings could have come from the robe," a source said."

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...7/07/18-1.html (http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/18-1.html)

DeeDee249
09-14-2010, 12:35 AM
Okay, I will admit...I have never seen that before. Very observant of you MF.

But...it is possible that the blue fibers came from John's blue robe...

"Dark-toned fabric. Police noticed navy blue pillings - or fuzzy balls from cloth - on JonBenet's lower body, sources said. Investigators later found John Ramsey's dark-colored bathrobe on the floor of his home office next to a desk, sources said. "Some of the police thought the pillings could have come from the robe," a source said."

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...7/07/18-1.html (http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/18-1.html)

Isn't it aggravating that the BPD thought that, yet no one seems to have tested that robe against the fibers on JB? We don't even know if they took that bathrobe into evidence, do we?

MurriFlower
09-14-2010, 03:35 AM
Okay, I will admit...I have never seen that before. Very observant of you MF.

But...it is possible that the blue fibers came from John's blue robe...

"Dark-toned fabric. Police noticed navy blue pillings - or fuzzy balls from cloth - on JonBenet's lower body, sources said. Investigators later found John Ramsey's dark-colored bathrobe on the floor of his home office next to a desk, sources said. "Some of the police thought the pillings could have come from the robe," a source said."

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...7/07/18-1.html (http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/18-1.html)

Well Ames, I'm thinking that if the blue cloth was used to wipe off blood, then -- voila!! -- it would have blood on it!! If the bathrobe was used, ditto.

MurriFlower
09-14-2010, 03:36 AM
Isn't it aggravating that the BPD thought that, yet no one seems to have tested that robe against the fibers on JB? We don't even know if they took that bathrobe into evidence, do we?

I agree DD, they are totally thoughtless as far as we are concerned!! If they just gave us all the information, I'm sure we could have this thing sorted in a trice.

Ames
09-16-2010, 01:11 AM
Well Ames, I'm thinking that if the blue cloth was used to wipe off blood, then -- voila!! -- it would have blood on it!! If the bathrobe was used, ditto.

Exactly! But...nobody even knows if that bathrobe was taken into evidence. Thanks to those Keystone Barney Fife Cops. :banghead:

madeleine
09-16-2010, 03:12 AM
Exactly! But...nobody even knows if that bathrobe was taken into evidence. Thanks to those Keystone Barney Fife Cops. :banghead:

I think it was taken into evidence,they were after the Ramsey's and really wanted to get them and I think it was no match.:twocents:
But on the other hand,who knows,since ST (and others I am sure) were so eager to clear JR and have PR alone guilty for everything.

joeskidbeck
09-16-2010, 08:01 AM
OR they were taken into evidence and had incriminating dna that belonged to someone too young to be considered. We would never be told about any evidence that implicated BR.

SuperDave
09-18-2010, 04:41 PM
Hey guys,question.
So if I understand correctly it's very easy for touch DNA to be depostied anywhere and you claim it could have been anyone who touched JB's clothing (and then it got transfered on other pieces).Right?
This makes me wonder,how come did they find DNA belonging only to mr.X (alledged intruder)?
JB's DNA must be there,PR's DNA must be there,LHP's DNA must be there,JR's DNA must be there.Okay,their DNA is not relevant,they lived there.
What about other people though,if touch DNA gets transfered so easily I would expect them to find more of it from more unknown persons.

That's precisely what I tried to find out. Too bad BODE's not as forthcoming as you'd expect.

SuperDave
09-18-2010, 04:43 PM
IIRC the CBI (not Bode)helped ML eliminate all these people as the dna owner(LE,those present at the autopsy).
Now I don't trust ML but I guess the CBI is different.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/templates/bocoda.aspx?articleid=1256&zoneid=13

Even Bill Wise said it was unlikely that every person could have been tested.

UKGuy
09-18-2010, 05:17 PM
The apparent lack of mention of findings of parental DNA on JB's clothing can mean any of of a few possibilities.
One, that this DNA does exist, but because whoever is in control of this evidence does not want this information to be made public, it has not been revealed. This person preventing this could be LW, or another defense attorney, and not necessarily the DA or other LE.
Two, is that it is NOT there, because they wore gloves when handling her and her panties and longjohns. Absolutely NO innocent reason for a parent to do this. They BOTH said they touched the longjohns. Patsy said she dressed JB in the longjohns,but tellingly she never mentions the panties. ANY mother seeing such a poorly-fitting pair of panties on a child (especially one known to wet the bed) would have changed them as well.
As for JR, he was SEEN to be holding JB around the waist while she was wearing the longjohns as he carried her stiffened body up from the basement, so the lack of mention of HIS DNA leads me to think it is the first theory, that it is there, but that information is being repressed.

DeeDee249,

As you suggest Ramsey dna on JonBenet's clothing may not be telling. But Ramsey forensic artifacts on her size-12's are of a different order.

If you think JonBenet wore those size-12's to the White's xmas party then read no further.

I reckon the size-12's were clean on JonBenet after being relocated to the basement. Now these size-12's were essentially forensically clean e.g. just out of the box. So any forensic traces should be relevant.

Now fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were allegedly found on JonBenet's external labia and inside the size-12's. So if additionally John's touch-dna is located on those size-12's then like Patsy I reckon this places him at the crime-scene.

Most RDI reckon those size-12's were new, e.g. pristine clean on JonBenet, so if the touch-dna is good enough for suspicion, why not those Israeli fibers?

DeeDee249
09-18-2010, 05:30 PM
DeeDee249,

As you suggest Ramsey dna on JonBenet's clothing may not be telling. But Ramsey forensic artifacts on her size-12's are of a different order.

If you think JonBenet wore those size-12's to the White's xmas party then read no further.

I reckon the size-12's were clean on JonBenet after being relocated to the basement. Now these size-12's were essentially forensically clean e.g. just out of the box. So any forensic traces should be relevant.

Now fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were allegedly found on JonBenet's external labia and inside the size-12's. So if additionally John's touch-dna is located on those size-12's then like Patsy I reckon this places him at the crime-scene.

Most RDI reckon those size-12's were new, e.g. pristine clean on JonBenet, so if the touch-dna is good enough for suspicion, why not those Israeli fibers?

ITA on all counts. Why couldn't the Israeli fibers be enough for suspicion? Well, as far the BPD are concerned, they ARE enough for suspicion. So are Patsy's jacket fibers. But the DA had another agenda. And it wasn't to solve the crime. It was to prevent him from going into another trial. He had a solid record of plea-bargain after plea-bargain, and by some accounts, he WAS ready to offer a plea-bargain to the Rs.

joeskidbeck
09-18-2010, 07:29 PM
ITA on all counts. Why couldn't the Israeli fibers be enough for suspicion? Well, as far the BPD are concerned, they ARE enough for suspicion. So are Patsy's jacket fibers. But the DA had another agenda. And it wasn't to solve the crime. It was to prevent him from going into another trial. He had a solid record of plea-bargain after plea-bargain, and by some accounts, he WAS ready to offer a plea-bargain to the Rs.

You may think I'm crazy, but even a plea-bargain would have been better than 14 years with no justice for JonBenet. Who knows, the Ramseys may have even taken it in the beginning, before it became crystal clear that the DA's office would never bring charges against them. Of course that's only if their lord and protector, LW agreed.

SuperDave
09-22-2010, 01:38 AM
You may think I'm crazy, but even a plea-bargain would have been better than 14 years with no justice for JonBenet. Who knows, the Ramseys may have even taken it in the beginning, before it became crystal clear that the DA's office would never bring charges against them. Of course that's only if their lord and protector, LW agreed.

At one time, I would have thought you were crazy, beck. I was adamantly opposed to the idea of a plea bargain. I strongly felt that, for all of their arrogance and the BS they subjected the country to, nothing short of the severest punishment would suffice, because to me, a plea bargain would have only proved that special people get special justice.

But as time has gone on, I've seriously reconsidered that position. I hate to say it, but this is one time when AH's "Let's Make a Deal" gameshow approach to justice might have been the best option available.

MurriFlower
09-23-2010, 09:26 PM
Would Bode know the 'ethnicity' of the person whose matching DNA found on the longjohns?

cynic
09-25-2010, 05:53 PM
Would Bode know the 'ethnicity' of the person whose matching DNA found on the longjohns?
Short answer, no.
Long answer is below.
(The DNA in this case is unlikely to be of sufficient quality to be able to determine a usable “racial profile.”)

On July 16, 2002, a survey crew from the Department of Transportation found Pam Kinamore's nude, decomposing body in the area along the banks of the Mississippi known as Whiskey Bay, just west of Baton Rouge. The police tested the DNA and quickly realized that they were dealing with a serial killer: the same man who had killed two other white, middle-class women in the area.
The FBI, Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police Department and sheriff's departments soon began a massive search. Based on an FBI profile and a confident eyewitness, the Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force futilely upended South Louisiana in search of a young white man who drove a white pick-up truck. They interrogated possible suspects, knocked on hundreds of doors, held frequent press conferences and sorted through thousands of tips.
In late December, after a fourth murder, police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men. Authorities spent months and more than a million dollars running those samples against the killer's. Still nothing.
In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.
Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.
"Your guy has substantial African ancestry," said Frudakis. "He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all."
There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.
"This means we're going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction," Frudakis recalls someone saying. "Are you comfortable with that?"
"Yes. I recommend you do that," he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis' advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody.

The DNA forensic products available at the time could only be used to match DNA specimens in the CODIS, or Combined DNA Index System, database which contains about 5 million DNA profiles. If investigators have a crime scene sample but no suspect, they run it against those in the database to see if it matches a sample already on file.
But while CODIS is good at linking the criminals who are already catalogued from other crimes, the system is useless in identifying physical characteristics. It says nothing about race. It has been specifically set up to reveal no racial information whatsoever, in part so that the test would be consistently accurate irrespective of race.
But non-scientific considerations also factored into how the system was established. When the national DNA Advisory Board selected the gene markers, or DNA sequences which have a known location on a chromosome, for CODIS, they deliberately chose not to include markers associated with ancestral geographic origins to avoid any political maelstrom.
DNAWitness, the test Frudakis applied in the Baton Rouge case, uses a set of 176 genetic markers selected precisely because they disclose the most information about physical characteristics. Some are found primarily in people of African heritage, while others are found mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American or South Asian heritage.
No one sequence alone can predict ancestral origin. However, by looking collectively at hundreds and analyzing the frequency of the various markers, Frudakis says he could predict genetic ancestry with 99 percent accuracy.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all)

Researchers are identifying genes that give rise to a person's physical traits, such as facial structure, skin color or even whether they are right- or left-handed. That could allow police to build a picture of what a criminal looks like not just from sometimes-fuzzy eyewitness accounts, but by analyzing DNA found at a crime scene.
Forensic experts are increasingly relying on DNA as "a genetic eyewitness," says Jack Ballantyne, associate director for research at the National Center for Forensic Science at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, who is studying whether a DNA sample can reveal a person's age. "We'd like to say if the DNA found on a bomb fragment comes from the young man who carried the bomb or from the wizened old mastermind who built it."
The push to predict physical features from genetic material is known as DNA forensic phenotyping, and it's already helped crack some difficult investigations. In 2004, police caught a Louisiana serial killer who eyewitnesses had suggested was white, but whose crime-scene DNA suggested -- correctly -- that he was black. Britain's forensic service uses a similar "ethnic inference" test to trace murderers and rapists.
In 2007, a DNA test based on 34 genetic biomarkers developed by Christopher Phillips, a forensic geneticist at the University of Santiago de Compostelo in Spain, indicated that one of the suspects associated with the Madrid bombings was of North African origin. His body was mostly destroyed in an explosion. Using other clues, police later confirmed he had been an Algerian, thereby validating the test results.
But the technique is still in early stages of development, and no one has developed a gene-based police sketch yet. There are big challenges. The technology currently has limited accuracy and can send law enforcement officials on the wrong track. It has also prompted ethical concerns.
For example, tests to assess a person's ethnic origin won't always work on people of mixed race. Other times, the conclusion can be ambiguous or unhelpful. "What does it mean to say that the DNA belongs to a 'light-skinned black man'? It's a subjective interpretation," says Pamela Sankar, who is teaches bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and has a National Institutes of Health grant to study societal implications of the new technology.
Worried about the ethical and social challenges, Germany doesn't permit the forensic use of DNA to infer ethnicity or physical traits. Nor do a handful of U.S. states, including Indiana, Wyoming and Rhode Island. The U.K. and the Netherlands allow it.
DNA-based racial profiling "has to be used carefully," especially in a diverse country like America, says Bert-Jaap Koops of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who has studied the regulatory picture in different countries. "Some people could make connections between race, crime and genetic disposition" and thereby encourage stigmatization.
But scientists are working to overcome the deficiencies and say that more precise DNA tests for ethnicity and several physical traits are on the horizon.
For instance, Murray Brilliant, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, is developing a predictive test for skin, eye and hair color. Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, he and his colleagues recently analyzed DNA material provided by 1,000 university students from different ethnic backgrounds. They found a total of five genes that account for 76% of the variation for hair color, 75% for eye color and 46% for skin color.
Similarly, scientists from Erasmus University published a paper in March in the journal Current Biology based on a DNA analysis of 6,000 people in the Netherlands. For that population group, they found that only six DNA markers are needed to predict brown eye color with 93% accuracy and blue eye color with 91% accuracy.
Such studies bolster the case for devising a reliable DNA-based test for some physical characteristics. A person's hair color or skin tone can be relatively easy to predict because the identified genes have a fairly strong effect on the trait. However, it isn't quite so easy to make a useful prediction about traits such as height or body mass index. That's because many more genes are likely involved, with each making only a small contribution to the overall effect.
Dr. Ballantyne of the University of Central Florida can look at DNA and tell whether it comes from a newborn or a child that's a few months old. That's because some genes show different levels of activity at different stages of human development. But figuring out whether a piece of DNA has been shed at a crime scene by a 20-year-old, 40-year-old or 60-year-old -- a tool the police would clearly love to have -- is a much tougher problem and nowhere near being solved.
Similarly, height is a physical trait that's at least 80% heritable, yet no one has managed to develop a DNA-based test for it. A single gene has been associated with left- or right-handedness. But unlike many genes, examining this one in an adult can't help solve the lefty-righty question.
Mark Shriver, an anthropologist and geneticist at Pennsylvania State University, has also set himself a daunting challenge: Trying to construct a "picture" of a person's face by analyzing DNA. He calls the technique "forensic molecular photo fitting," and it is supported by a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.
The notion isn't as crazy as it sounds. People look a lot like their parents, so it's clear that facial features are highly heritable. But how do you pinpoint the genes that underlie these facial features?
Prof. Shriver focused on 180 genes that have been previously linked to about 400 craniofacial abnormalities, such as cleft lip. He studied their rate of evolution, figuring that if a gene had led to different physical traits in populations -- such as shorter noses in one group, for example -- it would have evolved faster than other genes. These genes were likely to have been subject to sexual- or natural selection, and the traits associated with them would have been passed down through the generations.
His team collected DNA samples and photographs from 243 people, including many from the Penn State campus, and used computer techniques to correlate the genes with his subjects' facial features. They have found six genes that seem to influence such traits. One gene is associated with the height of the face; another is associated with its width. Yet another gene affects the shape of the lips and the nose. By piecing together these elements, Prof. Shriver hopes to create a modern-day version of the police artist sketch.
Because the world has so many different human populations -- and there is so much variation in their facial features -- a reliable test will require many more biomarkers. So the team has gotten additional samples from more than 3,500 people from around the world, including those in the U.S., Europe, Brazil and the Cape Verde Islands.
Prof. Shriver believes he may need samples from at least 8,000 people, including those from other populations, to develop a practical test for facial structure. He estimates it could cost $10 million and five years to get it done.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123810863649052551.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123810863649052551.html)

We recently introduced DNAWitness™2.5 to the forensics market. Law enforcement officers use this testing service to determine genetic heritage from DNA samples obtained from crime scenes, narrowing the potential suspect pool to a more focused group of likely candidates. The test enables law enforcement agencies to reduce both the cost and time needed to apprehend suspects. Current forensic DNA products in the market act like a fingerprint and can only be used to match DNA specimens. DNAPrint® is the first forensic product that provides predictive capability. DNAWitness™ will provide the percentage of genetic makeup amongst the four possible groups of Sub-Saharan African, Native American, East Asian, and European. When appropriate, DNAWitness™ allows for a breakdown of the European ancestry into four components: Northwestern European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern and South Asian. The names of the components/groups is meaningful but not exact, since they are cast in modern-day terminology but the assay is an anthropological one that reports affiliation with populations who share common ancestry extending back many thousands of years. The real value of the percentages reported are as population (rather than individual) bar-codes, which are very useful for inferring certain elements of physical appearance.
Initial DNAWitness™ 2.5 customers include medical examiner's offices, special task forces, sheriffs' departments, and district attorney's offices from various cities. These cities include the three largest U.S. metropolitan areas of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Initial response from preliminary application of this forensics version to various high profile criminal cases has been promising.
Derrick Todd Lee, the alleged Louisiana serial killer, was recently apprehended and has been convicted for first-degree murder and aggravated rape. The Louisiana Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force (including the Baton Rouge Police, the FBI and other agencies) had initially relied on faulty eye-witness testimony to develop a “Caucasian” description for the “person of interest”. DNAPrint® was hired to analyze the DNA evidence left at some of the crime scenes and determined that the suspect was 85% Sub-Saharan African and 15% Native American. Based upon these findings, the Task Force materially altered the focus of their investigation and included Derrick Todd Lee as a person of interest. ABC’s Prime Time Thursday recently featured DNAPrint® with a story detailing the role DNAWitness™ had in the resolution of this case. In addition, this case was featured in US News and World Report (June 23, 2003), the New York Times (June 3, 2003), Popular Science (December, 2003), and prior to the case, by CBS Evening News.
We have performed about 13,000 “blind” tests to date. For example, one west coast police department sent 16 samples collected from members of the department. The results were judged by them to be correct (consistent with phenotype and self-held notions of ancestry) for all 16 samples. Similarly, an east coast police department sent 20 blind samples and DNAPrint® accurately predicted the genetic heritage of all 20 people.
We introduced an expansion of DNAWitness™ 2.5 by bringing out EUROWitness™ 1.0 which breaks down the four major groupings of Sub Saharan African, Native American, East Asian and Indo-European provided a DNAWitness™ 2.5 test comes back with 50% or greater Indo-European, it is eligible for EUROWitness 1.0 that further refines the admixture to Northwest European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern and South Asian.
We also in 2005 released our RETINOME™ assay. RETINOME™ provides a dramatic improvement in our ability to construct a physical portrait of a person of interest for a detective based on a DNA sample from a crime scene or remains of an individual. RETINOME™ allows us to infer eye (iris) color from DNA and this SNP based method for testing eye color is the first of its kind. The method employs proprietary computational methods and combines human pigmentation gene SNP combinations and ancestry informative markers to predict human eye color directly, accurately and sensitively. Validation experiments necessary to define the precise accuracy reveal that the inferences are correct about 92% of the time – performance that is quite respectable given the genetic complexity of iris coloration. We continue to work on hair color, skin pigmentation and other physical characteristics that scientists have or have not yet identified gene markers.
DNAPrint®’s portfolio of services will now include an array of presumptive tests that will help detectives tackle the nearly 1.2 million reported incidents of violent crime in the U.S. Statistics from the National Institutes of Justice and many local and state agencies generally report that only about 50% result in an arrest, and only a small percentage of those result in a criminal conviction. In violent crimes, DNA evidence is left at a crime scene or on a victim’s body in the vast majority of cases. Most investigators highly value physical descriptions of individuals or persons of interest obtained from human eye-witnesses. However, as the Louisiana case illustrates, eye-witnesses can be mistaken, and sometimes they are subjective, inaccurate or sometimes intentionally misleading, generally however most eye witnesses try to accurately report what they have seen. Unfortunately, sometimes several people at a crime scene will report conflicting descriptions. Detectives can corroborate eyewitness reports or perhaps even change the direction of an investigation despite eyewitness reports based on our analysis of the DNA.
DNAWitness™ provides a “molecular” eye-witness that is more scientific because it is a quantitative analysis of inherited genetic markers. Moreover, DNA is more readily available from most crime scenes. As we continue our research, we intend to develop additional assays that address other inherited traits that bear on physical appearance. The idea is to provide a drivers license for each person of interest from a crime scene analysis, with as many of the physical descriptors as possible (minus their name and address of course).
Hundreds of thousands of rape-kits sit on shelves of investigative agencies around the country. For how many of them would accurate physical descriptions be useful in a more timely apprehension? In addition, there is a recent trend in the legal system to retroactively test DNA evidence left at crime scenes to substantiate or invalidate the previous legal defenses of incarcerated individuals. DNAPrint®'s technology could be used to screen the DNA samples and categorize them. For example, if the results of DNAPrint®'s testing shows that the DNA from the crime scene belongs to a an European individual and the incarcerated individual is an African American, that DNA would have priority for the more laborious and time-consuming STR testing because the likelihood of vindication is high. In recent years there have been more than 130 exonerations of previously convicted individuals based on DNA evidence. With the use of DNAPrint®'s DNAWitness™ 2.5, the length of wrongful incarceration for innocent individuals could be shortened.
In absence of and as confirmation to human witness, law enforcement officials and medical examiners using DNAWitness™ 2.5 have the capability to construct a physical description of the person of interest and narrow the field of investigation, saving time and money. By narrowing the list of possible interviews to those fitting a specific physical description, law enforcement officers can substantially reduce the amount of time and cost involved in apprehending crime suspects. To date, DNAWitness™ has been used in over 90 criminal investigations. The validation results are available on CD-ROM by request.
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/forensics/ (http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/forensics/)

Boulder LE has used this technology in the Susannah Chase case.
Boulder investigators learned in 2004 that the suspect could be Hispanic or Native American after sending the DNA specimen from Chase's body to DNAPrint Genomics in Florida.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/28/dna-match-made-a-decade-later/ (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/28/dna-match-made-a-decade-later/)

More on the Susannah Chase case in the post below.

cynic
09-25-2010, 05:57 PM
It’s clear that Diego Olmos Alcalde is guilty with respect to the charges against him in the Susannah Chase case; however, it is interesting to note that, once again, “unidentified DNA” was found and proven to be unrelated to the perpetrator of the crime.
“Unidentified DNA” was found in the cervix of Susannah Chase as well as on the murder weapon.
Alcade’s DNA was not found on the murder weapon, although his girlfriend’s DNA was found, secondary transfer perhaps?

DNA on a baseball bat used to kill a University of Colorado student in 1997 has been linked to the slaying suspect's girlfriend, according to a published report.
DNA collected from the body of Susannah Chase already linked Diego Olmos Alcalde to her, but the new DNA evidence shows Alcalde had access to the weapon, the Daily Camera reported Thursday.
Alcalde's former girlfriend consented to provide DNA to investigators, the newspaper reported.
The former girlfriend, identified in court documents as Sonci Frances, has been ruled out as a suspect in the Chase killing because she was not in Colorado at the time of the slaying.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html)

Defense attorney Steven Jacobson vigorously questioned the testing methods used and choices made by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation on the Susannah Chase case Friday afternoon.
In particular, he challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt on his decision not to tell police or put in his 2002 report that he had found on the baseball bat handle a sample of male DNA that didn't match his client, Diego Olmos Alcalde.
Jacoboson chided Arndt for not submitting the profile -- which was a weaker profile to a female DNA profile found on the bat -- to the nationwide DNA criminal database for comparison to crime scene evidence.
"Nothing happened about anyone analyzing that male on the bat and putting him the database?" Jacobson asked.
Arndt said his agency didn't go back in later years to put the profile in the database, even as DNA analysis techniques improved.
"It could have happened in 2005, but it did not," Arndt said.
Jacobson asked him if it wasn't true that the profile was only submitted to the criminal DNA database earlier this year after he visited CBI to ask about it.
Arndt said that was true.
Jacobson also asked Arndt if solid DNA profiles might not have been lifted from the many cigarette butts that were found in the crime scene by police.
Arndt said 90 percent of the time DNA profiles can be successfully recovered from smoked cigarettes.
Defense attorney Steven Jacobson challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt during cross-examination Friday afternoon.
He asked Arndt if DNA breaks down over time, to a point where a good profile can no longer be identified.
Arndt said that's true.
Jacobson noted that Arndt was doing tests on the baseball bat handle in 2002 -- five years after Susannah Chase was attacked.
The lawyer also challenged Arndt on how possible it is to tell when DNA was left.
"You can't say anything about the time frame when the DNA was deposited based on your lab work," he asked.
"That is correct," Arndt said.
Testimony went into detailed discussion about DNA analysis this afternoon, with prosecutor Ryan Brackley putting on display a variety of charts showing regions of DNA strands and what they reveal about genetic material recovered on the baseball bat found at the crime scene.
Ronald Arndt, a DNA specialist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, testified that he used the new touch DNA extraction method in 2002 in an attempt to recover a DNA profile from the bat handle.
He said he managed to find a major profile, which belonged to a female, and a minor profile, which belonged to a male. Arndt told the jury he was unable to match the profiles to any known person.
He also said he developed a DNA profile from a swab taken from Susannah Chase's cervix. He said he found a mix of Chase's DNA and that of an unknown male from that swab.
Again, he told the jury, he was unable to match the unknown sample to an identifiable person.
The CBI agent who did DNA analysis on the evidence in the Susannah Chase murder case said he didn't find any semen in Chase's underpants or jeans.
Ronald Arndt, the agent-in-charge of the agency's biological science unit, said investigators will often find traces of semen in the underwear of a woman who recently had sexual intercourse, due to "drainage" of seminal fluid on to the underpants.
Prosecutor Ryan Brackley asked Arndt if it's possible there wouldn't be evidence of semen drainage if the woman was lying down or her underwear was not in contact with her crotch.
Arndt said that was possible.
The agent then testified that from the sexual assault evidence kit collected from Chase -- which included swabs taken from her vagina and cervix -- he found a heavier concentration of sperm in Chase's vagina than in her cervix.
When Brackley asked him what that meant in terms of when intercourse might have taken place, Arndt said it indicated that intercourse likely happened more recently because the bulk of the sperm hadn't yet migrated toward the uterus.
He didn't provide a specific estimate of when intercourse may have taken place.
The argument over the age of the seminal fluid found inside Chase is critical in the case, with the prosecution claiming that Diego Alcalde raped Chase the night he attacked her while the defense has hinted that its client may have had consensual sex with Chase days before the attack.
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712 (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712)
also…
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999 (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999)

A man accused of beating and raping a University of Colorado student in 1997 was found guilty on all counts Friday afternoon, ending her family's 12-year quest for answers.
Diego Olmos Alcalde, 39, was found guilty of first-degree murder, sexual assault and kidnapping in the death of 23-year-old Susannah Chase.
Prosecutors said Olmos Alcalde's DNA was found inside Chase and that DNA on a baseball bat from Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend links the Chilean native to the murder.
Defense attorneys argued prosecutors failed to pursue other suspects. They also said Olmos Alcalde had consensual sex with Chase, which explains why his DNA was on her body.
Prosecutors said the claim that the sex was consensual is "preposterous." After the verdict, prosecutor Amy Okubo said it was an argument that the jury flatly rejected. "Their verdict made it clear that that would not be a possibility," she said.
Olmos Alcalde was linked to the cold case last year through a DNA sample taken from him after he was convicted in Wyoming for kidnapping.
"The defendant would like you to believe that he was Romeo out there, suave," prosecutor Amy Okubo told jurors before they were given the case. Okubo said it was unlikely that Chase would have met Olmos Alcalde and had sex with him, since she had spent the last three days of her life attending a graduation ceremony, buying Christmas presents and spending the night at a hotel with her boyfriend and his family.
Okubo said Chase wasn't a reckless woman who would have random sex with someone.
Prosecutors said the murder weapon, a child-size baseball bat, belonged to Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend. They said the ex-girlfriend's DNA was found on the bat, linking Olmos Alcalde to the beginning and end of the crime.
Defense attorneys had argued that partial fingerprints and the DNA profile of another male also were found on the bat handle, suggesting that the real killer was still on the loose.
Okubo said investigators have checked the DNA profile with a national database and came up with no suspects, and that the other set of DNA likely came from a child.
"The defendant wants you to believe astronomical coincidences are out there," she said. "That the bat directly connected to... the defendant's girlfriend was used by some unknown person to kill Susannah Chase. That's impossible. It's preposterous."
Defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan said nurses and doctors who treated Chase indicated at the time that there was no evidence of sexual assault. She also told jurors that Chase's jeans had no blood on them, despite the bloodiness of the crime scene and prosecutors' allegation that the assailant put the woman's jeans on Chase's body after the sexual assault.
"They assumed that whoever had sex with her must have killed her, so they focused on that and they put on blinders to everything else," Mulligan told jurors.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html)

cynic
09-25-2010, 05:59 PM
I am going to tackle the fiber evidence next.

whew. See ya'll in about a week maybe?How is your look at the fiber evidence going?

MurriFlower
09-25-2010, 10:01 PM
It’s clear that Diego Olmos Alcalde is guilty with respect to the charges against him in the Susannah Chase case; however, it is interesting to note that, once again, “unidentified DNA” was found and proven to be unrelated to the perpetrator of the crime.
“Unidentified DNA” was found in the cervix of Susannah Chase as well as on the murder weapon.
Alcade’s DNA was not found on the murder weapon, although his girlfriend’s DNA was found, secondary transfer perhaps?

DNA on a baseball bat used to kill a University of Colorado student in 1997 has been linked to the slaying suspect's girlfriend, according to a published report.
DNA collected from the body of Susannah Chase already linked Diego Olmos Alcalde to her, but the new DNA evidence shows Alcalde had access to the weapon, the Daily Camera reported Thursday.
Alcalde's former girlfriend consented to provide DNA to investigators, the newspaper reported.
The former girlfriend, identified in court documents as Sonci Frances, has been ruled out as a suspect in the Chase killing because she was not in Colorado at the time of the slaying.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19136297/detail.html)

Defense attorney Steven Jacobson vigorously questioned the testing methods used and choices made by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation on the Susannah Chase case Friday afternoon.
In particular, he challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt on his decision not to tell police or put in his 2002 report that he had found on the baseball bat handle a sample of male DNA that didn't match his client, Diego Olmos Alcalde.
Jacoboson chided Arndt for not submitting the profile -- which was a weaker profile to a female DNA profile found on the bat -- to the nationwide DNA criminal database for comparison to crime scene evidence.
"Nothing happened about anyone analyzing that male on the bat and putting him the database?" Jacobson asked.
Arndt said his agency didn't go back in later years to put the profile in the database, even as DNA analysis techniques improved.
"It could have happened in 2005, but it did not," Arndt said.
Jacobson asked him if it wasn't true that the profile was only submitted to the criminal DNA database earlier this year after he visited CBI to ask about it.
Arndt said that was true.
Jacobson also asked Arndt if solid DNA profiles might not have been lifted from the many cigarette butts that were found in the crime scene by police.
Arndt said 90 percent of the time DNA profiles can be successfully recovered from smoked cigarettes.
Defense attorney Steven Jacobson challenged CBI DNA expert Ronald Arndt during cross-examination Friday afternoon.
He asked Arndt if DNA breaks down over time, to a point where a good profile can no longer be identified.
Arndt said that's true.
Jacobson noted that Arndt was doing tests on the baseball bat handle in 2002 -- five years after Susannah Chase was attacked.
The lawyer also challenged Arndt on how possible it is to tell when DNA was left.
"You can't say anything about the time frame when the DNA was deposited based on your lab work," he asked.
"That is correct," Arndt said.
Testimony went into detailed discussion about DNA analysis this afternoon, with prosecutor Ryan Brackley putting on display a variety of charts showing regions of DNA strands and what they reveal about genetic material recovered on the baseball bat found at the crime scene.
Ronald Arndt, a DNA specialist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, testified that he used the new touch DNA extraction method in 2002 in an attempt to recover a DNA profile from the bat handle.
He said he managed to find a major profile, which belonged to a female, and a minor profile, which belonged to a male. Arndt told the jury he was unable to match the profiles to any known person.
He also said he developed a DNA profile from a swab taken from Susannah Chase's cervix. He said he found a mix of Chase's DNA and that of an unknown male from that swab.
Again, he told the jury, he was unable to match the unknown sample to an identifiable person.
The CBI agent who did DNA analysis on the evidence in the Susannah Chase murder case said he didn't find any semen in Chase's underpants or jeans.
Ronald Arndt, the agent-in-charge of the agency's biological science unit, said investigators will often find traces of semen in the underwear of a woman who recently had sexual intercourse, due to "drainage" of seminal fluid on to the underpants.
Prosecutor Ryan Brackley asked Arndt if it's possible there wouldn't be evidence of semen drainage if the woman was lying down or her underwear was not in contact with her crotch.
Arndt said that was possible.
The agent then testified that from the sexual assault evidence kit collected from Chase -- which included swabs taken from her vagina and cervix -- he found a heavier concentration of sperm in Chase's vagina than in her cervix.
When Brackley asked him what that meant in terms of when intercourse might have taken place, Arndt said it indicated that intercourse likely happened more recently because the bulk of the sperm hadn't yet migrated toward the uterus.
He didn't provide a specific estimate of when intercourse may have taken place.
The argument over the age of the seminal fluid found inside Chase is critical in the case, with the prosecution claiming that Diego Alcalde raped Chase the night he attacked her while the defense has hinted that its client may have had consensual sex with Chase days before the attack.
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712 (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13125712)
also…
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999 (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_12962999)

A man accused of beating and raping a University of Colorado student in 1997 was found guilty on all counts Friday afternoon, ending her family's 12-year quest for answers.
Diego Olmos Alcalde, 39, was found guilty of first-degree murder, sexual assault and kidnapping in the death of 23-year-old Susannah Chase.
Prosecutors said Olmos Alcalde's DNA was found inside Chase and that DNA on a baseball bat from Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend links the Chilean native to the murder.
Defense attorneys argued prosecutors failed to pursue other suspects. They also said Olmos Alcalde had consensual sex with Chase, which explains why his DNA was on her body.
Prosecutors said the claim that the sex was consensual is "preposterous." After the verdict, prosecutor Amy Okubo said it was an argument that the jury flatly rejected. "Their verdict made it clear that that would not be a possibility," she said.
Olmos Alcalde was linked to the cold case last year through a DNA sample taken from him after he was convicted in Wyoming for kidnapping.
"The defendant would like you to believe that he was Romeo out there, suave," prosecutor Amy Okubo told jurors before they were given the case. Okubo said it was unlikely that Chase would have met Olmos Alcalde and had sex with him, since she had spent the last three days of her life attending a graduation ceremony, buying Christmas presents and spending the night at a hotel with her boyfriend and his family.
Okubo said Chase wasn't a reckless woman who would have random sex with someone.
Prosecutors said the murder weapon, a child-size baseball bat, belonged to Olmos Alcalde's ex-girlfriend. They said the ex-girlfriend's DNA was found on the bat, linking Olmos Alcalde to the beginning and end of the crime.
Defense attorneys had argued that partial fingerprints and the DNA profile of another male also were found on the bat handle, suggesting that the real killer was still on the loose.
Okubo said investigators have checked the DNA profile with a national database and came up with no suspects, and that the other set of DNA likely came from a child.
"The defendant wants you to believe astronomical coincidences are out there," she said. "That the bat directly connected to... the defendant's girlfriend was used by some unknown person to kill Susannah Chase. That's impossible. It's preposterous."
Defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan said nurses and doctors who treated Chase indicated at the time that there was no evidence of sexual assault. She also told jurors that Chase's jeans had no blood on them, despite the bloodiness of the crime scene and prosecutors' allegation that the assailant put the woman's jeans on Chase's body after the sexual assault.
"They assumed that whoever had sex with her must have killed her, so they focused on that and they put on blinders to everything else," Mulligan told jurors.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19870284/detail.html)

Ok, well it appears there is still a chance that the ethnicity of this person will be determined, if not at present, then at some time in the future. Thanks for this cynic.

Edited to Add:

Just on DNA testing in this case. If the DNA profile found on the longjohns was compared with CODIS, would this profile stay on the file? What I'm wondering is, if it was tested in 2000 for example and no match was found, and the perp was arrested subsequently, would there be a 'hit' or does the profile need to be re-submitted intermittently to pick up matching profiles from newly added DNA?

joeskidbeck
09-26-2010, 09:02 AM
Ok, well it appears there is still a chance that the ethnicity of this person will be determined, if not at present, then at some time in the future. Thanks for this cynic.

Edited to Add:

Just on DNA testing in this case. If the DNA profile found on the longjohns was compared with CODIS, would this profile stay on the file? What I'm wondering is, if it was tested in 2000 for example and no match was found, and the perp was arrested subsequently, would there be a 'hit' or does the profile need to be re-submitted intermittently to pick up matching profiles from newly added DNA?


It would stay in Codis and if a suspects DNA was entered that matched there would be a hit. This has solved a lot of cases in the past. Especially cases of rape.

cynic
09-26-2010, 08:36 PM
Ok, well it appears there is still a chance that the ethnicity of this person will be determined, if not at present, then at some time in the future. Thanks for this cynic.
You’re welcome.
I must admit that this area of DNA research interests me greatly, and I believe it shows tremendous promise for helping law enforcement in their investigations.


Edited to Add:

Just on DNA testing in this case. If the DNA profile found on the longjohns was compared with CODIS, would this profile stay on the file? What I'm wondering is, if it was tested in 2000 for example and no match was found, and the perp was arrested subsequently, would there be a 'hit' or does the profile need to be re-submitted intermittently to pick up matching profiles from newly added DNA?
As Beck said in the post above, the original DNA profile would remain and all subsequent additions to CODIS would automatically be compared to that profile.

Some more information on CODIS is below.

The four primary functions of the current CODIS software are:
• DNA profile entry and management: deals with the database DNA profiles.
• Searching: allows a search of database DNA profiles.
• Match management: manages search results. For example, it allows a laboratory to record and distinguish whether a particular match is an offender hit or a forensic hit, and whether the match is within or outside of the state.
• Statistical calculations: enables laboratory personnel to calculate profile statistics, based on the laboratory's or FBI's population frequency data .

CODIS has a three-tiered hierarchical structure. DNA information originates at the local level (LDIS, Local DNA Index System), where biological samples are taken at police departments and sheriffs' offices. Data from the LDIS then flows into the state (SDIS, State DNA Index System) and the national (NDIS, National DNA Index System) databases. SDIS provides a means for local crime labs within a state to exchange information. The NDIS allows for the exchange of DNA profiles on the broadest scale at the national level. The hierarchical nature of CODIS allows investigators to use their databases according to the specific laws under which they operate.
CODIS does not store: Criminal history information, DOB, Case related information, Social Security #’s

Three levels:
• National DNA Index System (NDIS)
Operated by the FBI maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from casework, arrestees and convicted offenders
Data submitted from each state is searched against each other potential matches are returned to the corresponding lab, victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed

• State DNA Index System (SDIS)
Processes and enters arrestee and convicted offender samples, Victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed.
Provides a liaison between the local labs and NDIS
Maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from the local labs and the state lab
Searches the local labs and state data against each other
Potential matches are returned back to the corresponding lab
(While each state has its own laws concerning the collection of DNA and its expungement upon acquittal, there are some universal rules for states wanting to contribute to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This includes a requirement that records of the innocent must be expunged. However, only 43% of states that collect DNA samples automatically expunge the data upon acquittal. In most states the suspect must request that their record be expunged from the database.)

• Local DNA Index System (LDIS)
Submits acceptable DNA profiles to SDIS
Suspect profiles are/not allowed (depends on each jurisdiction)
Victim and exclusionary samples are/are not allowed (depends on law)
Searches against itself

CODIS Indices:
• Convicted offender/arrestee
• Forensic/Crime scene
• Relatives of missing persons
• Missing persons
• Unidentified human remains

The Forensic Index contains DNA information from the crime scene, including DNA information found on the victim. The Offender Index contains DNA profiles of convicted felons. Most states require all people convicted of sexual offenses, as well as many convicted of violent crimes, to provide genetic information to CODIS.
Some legal scholars say that the collection of DNA from arrestees violates the U.S. Constitution because only the convicted have forfeited their rights to privacy.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,649,605 offender profiles and 328,067 forensic profiles as of July 2010.
In addition, CODIS contains ancillary information that provides additional information for investigators to use in order to solve crimes. One index catalogues information collected from unidentified human remains and another collects DNA profiles voluntarily donated by the relatives of missing persons. CODIS also includes a population file consisting of anonymously donated DNA profiles. This file is used to quantify the statistical significance of a match.

Search Frequency:
• NDIS
– Weekly (Monday)
• SDIS
– Weekly (day varies)
(Missing Persons (NDIS)
– monthly)

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another. For solving a homicide, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases possibly identifying serial offenders. Police can coordinate separate investigations and share leads.
Matches made between the forensic and offender indexes ultimately provide the investigator(s) with a potential suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a qualified DNA analyst.

MurriFlower
09-26-2010, 09:37 PM
You’re welcome.
I must admit that this area of DNA research interests me greatly, and I believe it shows tremendous promise for helping law enforcement in their investigations.
As Beck said in the post above, the original DNA profile would remain and all subsequent additions to CODIS would automatically be compared to that profile.

Some more information on CODIS is below.

The four primary functions of the current CODIS software are:
• DNA profile entry and management: deals with the database DNA profiles.
• Searching: allows a search of database DNA profiles.
• Match management: manages search results. For example, it allows a laboratory to record and distinguish whether a particular match is an offender hit or a forensic hit, and whether the match is within or outside of the state.
• Statistical calculations: enables laboratory personnel to calculate profile statistics, based on the laboratory's or FBI's population frequency data .

CODIS has a three-tiered hierarchical structure. DNA information originates at the local level (LDIS, Local DNA Index System), where biological samples are taken at police departments and sheriffs' offices. Data from the LDIS then flows into the state (SDIS, State DNA Index System) and the national (NDIS, National DNA Index System) databases. SDIS provides a means for local crime labs within a state to exchange information. The NDIS allows for the exchange of DNA profiles on the broadest scale at the national level. The hierarchical nature of CODIS allows investigators to use their databases according to the specific laws under which they operate.
CODIS does not store: Criminal history information, DOB, Case related information, Social Security #’s

Three levels:
• National DNA Index System (NDIS)
Operated by the FBI maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from casework, arrestees and convicted offenders
Data submitted from each state is searched against each other potential matches are returned to the corresponding lab, victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed

• State DNA Index System (SDIS)
Processes and enters arrestee and convicted offender samples, Victim and exclusionary samples are not allowed, suspect profiles are allowed.
Provides a liaison between the local labs and NDIS
Maintains and stores accepted DNA profiles from the local labs and the state lab
Searches the local labs and state data against each other
Potential matches are returned back to the corresponding lab
(While each state has its own laws concerning the collection of DNA and its expungement upon acquittal, there are some universal rules for states wanting to contribute to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This includes a requirement that records of the innocent must be expunged. However, only 43% of states that collect DNA samples automatically expunge the data upon acquittal. In most states the suspect must request that their record be expunged from the database.)

• Local DNA Index System (LDIS)
Submits acceptable DNA profiles to SDIS
Suspect profiles are/not allowed (depends on each jurisdiction)
Victim and exclusionary samples are/are not allowed (depends on law)
Searches against itself

CODIS Indices:
• Convicted offender/arrestee
• Forensic/Crime scene
• Relatives of missing persons
• Missing persons
• Unidentified human remains

The Forensic Index contains DNA information from the crime scene, including DNA information found on the victim. The Offender Index contains DNA profiles of convicted felons. Most states require all people convicted of sexual offenses, as well as many convicted of violent crimes, to provide genetic information to CODIS.
Some legal scholars say that the collection of DNA from arrestees violates the U.S. Constitution because only the convicted have forfeited their rights to privacy.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,649,605 offender profiles and 328,067 forensic profiles as of July 2010.
In addition, CODIS contains ancillary information that provides additional information for investigators to use in order to solve crimes. One index catalogues information collected from unidentified human remains and another collects DNA profiles voluntarily donated by the relatives of missing persons. CODIS also includes a population file consisting of anonymously donated DNA profiles. This file is used to quantify the statistical significance of a match.

Search Frequency:
• NDIS
– Weekly (Monday)
• SDIS
– Weekly (day varies)
(Missing Persons (NDIS)
– monthly)

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another. For solving a homicide, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases possibly identifying serial offenders. Police can coordinate separate investigations and share leads.
Matches made between the forensic and offender indexes ultimately provide the investigator(s) with a potential suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a qualified DNA analyst.

Are there any States that do not collect DNA from convicted criminals, or are there any classes of criminals (political for example) who do not have DNA taken?

CathyR
09-27-2010, 09:39 AM
Ok after reading this thread I have come to some conclusions.

DNA belonging to a male was found along the waistband of JB's longjohns. Inside the band and outside the band. The same DNA was found inside the panties.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Debates about LPH- isn't that a female, I am just getting use to all the initials here.
It wouldn't be off base to think all females have been eliminated as the DNA belongs to a male.

DeeDee249
09-27-2010, 09:07 PM
Ok after reading this thread I have come to some conclusions.

DNA belonging to a male was found along the waistband of JB's longjohns. Inside the band and outside the band. The same DNA was found inside the panties.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Debates about LPH- isn't that a female, I am just getting use to all the initials here.
It wouldn't be off base to think all females have been eliminated as the DNA belongs to a male.

LHP is a female. She was Patsy's housekeeper and she came to the house three times a week. The DNA cannot belong to her because it is male DNA. I believe LHP (and some of her family?) gave DNA samples.
Cynic, you're the DNA expert here. If they had LHP's DNA, could they tell if the male DNA was related to her?

cynic
09-27-2010, 09:12 PM
Are there any States that do not collect DNA from convicted criminals?

No.

The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 limited compulsory extraction of DNA to people who had been convicted of a “qualifying federal offense.” Under the original act, “qualifying federal offenses” included limited but selected felonies, such as murder, kidnapping, and sexual exploitation.
After September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the “qualifying federal offense” definition to include terrorism-related crimes. In 2004, the Justice for All Act further extended the definition.
With regard to federal offenses for which DNA profiles may be obtained and entered into CODIS, the category has been expanded, but a conviction remains a prerequisite to entry into the DNA database. Qualifying federal offenses now include any felony, crimes of sexual abuse, any crime of violence, as well as any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses. Qualifying military offenses formerly limited to felony or sex offenses, now include any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more than one year may be imposed.
The statute also requires that each state that includes arrestee profiles in their DNA database “shall promptly expunge” from CODIS the DNA analysis of the arrestee who has not been convicted of the crime and the charges have been dismissed or an acquittal entered.
In April 2008 the Department of Justice published a proposed rule directing certain U.S. law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under U.S. authority.
The 109th Congress authorized the Attorney General, in his discretion, to require compulsory DNA collection from people who have been detained or arrested but not convicted on criminal charges. Specifically, the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005 authorized collection “from individuals who are arrested or from non-U.S. persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.”
Similarly, when Congress renewed the Violence Against Women Act in 2006, it included an amendment that authorizes federal officials to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested and from non-United States persons detained under U.S. authority. (Non-United States persons are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent resident aliens.)
The U.S. Department of Justice implemented this authorization in December 2008; beginning January, 9 2009, its rule requires U.S. agencies to collect DNA samples from “individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under authority of the United States.”

All 50 states require that convicted sex offenders provide a DNA sample, and states are increasingly expanding these policies to include all felons and some misdemeanor To date, 48 states require that all convicted felons provide a DNA sample to the state’s database.

New Hampshire and Idaho are the holdouts.
New Hampshire law requires DNA collection from those convicted of homicide, negligent homicide, first- and second-degree assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, burglary and robbery.
Similarly, in Idaho, only those convicted of certain felonies - mostly violent crimes and sexual offenses - have their DNA submitted to CODIS.

At least 15 states to date include certain misdemeanors among those who must provide a DNA sample. Some are misdemeanors for which sex offender registration is required; other states specify certain sex offenses or child victim offenses.
By 2009, 21 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas Vermont and Virginia, had passed laws authorizing DNA samples of certain arrestees; seven were passed in 2009 including Arkansas and Vermont, among others. Arkansas’s qualifying offenses are murder and sex crime arrests. The Texas law allows post-indictment samples of certain sex offenders. Minnesota's similarly requires a DNA sample after probable cause determination in a charge of one of many serious felonies. California’s Proposition 69, approved by voters on November 2, 2004, requires DNA samples of adults arrested for or charged with a felony sex offense, murder or voluntary manslaughter, or attempt of these crimes. Starting in 2009, the measure requires arrestee sampling be expanded to arrests for any felony offense. The same measure expanded DNA testing to all convicted felons. Kansas added the requirement that felony or drug sentencing guidelines grid level 1 or 2 crime arrestees provide a DNA sample in its law; and expanded in mid-2008 to all felony arrestees. New Mexico’s law also enacted arrestee samples from specified violent felons.



Are there any classes of criminals (political for example) who do not have DNA taken?
To the best of my knowledge, no; however, backroom political and/or intelligence community deals are a possibility, I suppose.

cynic
09-28-2010, 01:07 AM
If they had LHP's DNA, could they tell if the male DNA was related to her?
Closely related family members will often have a high level of matching CODIS markers.
If this was the case with the crime scene DNA and LHP, LE would likely have investigated further.

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown approved the use of familial DNA searches in that state in 2008, the first state to do so. Since then, authorities in the state have used the technique 10 times. Other states have tacitly allowed the procedure, without having any regulation or even formal policy in place to govern its use.
The United States isn’t the first to use the technique, however. Britain has conducted familial DNA searches 70 times since 2004, yielding 18 matches and 13 convictions, according to Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at Georgetown University Law School, who spoke with CNN.
In one case, British authorities tracked down a serial rapist using the technique. The culprit, who became known as the shoe rapist because police say he stole and kept his victims’ shoes, was caught after authorities matched crime-scene DNA with DNA from the suspect’s sister, who was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/dna-database/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/dna-database/)

A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On 7 July, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the "Grim Sleeper."
Since 2008, California has allowed so-called familial DNA searches, in which investigators look for close-but-not-exact matches between DNA evidence collected at crime scenes and the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons. The method has a longer history in the United Kingdom, where it led to a conviction in a murder case in 2004. In Colorado, the only other U.S. state to allow it, the method led to a guilty plea in a car-theft case in Denver last year.
On Friday, ScienceInsider spoke with two scientists involved with the DNA search, senior criminalist Steven Myers and case-work laboratory manager Gary Sims, both based at the Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory in Richmond, California. They explained that the searches initially focus on 15 regions of DNA on 13 chromosomes. These include the 13 regions used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and two additional regions used in California. All of these regions contain genetic stutters called short tandem repeats, in which a pattern of base pairs repeats itself over and over. The number of repeats varies from person to person, and two people who are related are likely to have the same number of repeats at more of these sites. The lab's analysis also considers how frequently a given variation occurs in the general population: two people who share a rare variation are more likely to be related than are two people who share a common one.
Sims and Myers explained that the lab's software uses this information to generate a ranked list of the convicted felons in the DNA database who are most likely to be first-order relatives—parents, children, or full siblings—of the person a DNA sample came from. (The statistics aren't strong enough to identify more distant relatives, they say.) When both individuals in question are male, the lab also looks at a similar number of short tandem repeats on the Y chromosome, which should be an exact match between fathers and sons and between full brothers.
California allows familial DNA searches only for violent crimes in which the perpetrator is still believed to be a danger to society. Sims and Myers say they have run 10 searches so far. The first nine came up empty, including a 2008 search with DNA evidence from the Grim Sleeper crime scene. "We did not find anybody in the database who we thought was a potential relative," says Sims.
However, a second search in April 2010 did turn up a potential match: a young man named Christopher Franklin who was convicted last year on a felony weapons charge. The DNA search, along with the dates of the murders cast suspicion on Christopher Franklin's father. After an internal review of the evidence, investigators at the Bashinski lab notified the L.A. police, who followed the elder Franklin and eventually got a DNA sample from a discarded piece of pizza. Lonnie Franklin's DNA matched DNA from the crime scenes, and police arrested him at his home last week.
Although it remains to be seen whether Franklin will be convicted, Sims says the lab is proud of its work. "To put this whole thing together ... and see it pay off is very gratifying," he says. "Nobody popped champagne bottles or anything like that, but we all feel like we earned our pay."
The apparent success of familial DNA testing in such a high-profile case may encourage other states to adopt it, but civil-liberties groups and some legal scholars have concerns about privacy and ethics issues. Stanford Law School professor Hank Greely is concerned about what he sees as a high likelihood of false-positive tests. In a database with DNA from a million or more individuals, several hundred people might have a close enough match on the CODIS markers to suggest a blood relationship, Greely estimates. If those matches result in false accusations, the burden of being falsely accused would fall disproportionately to African-Americans, who are overrepresented in the U.S. prison population. "It does raise some concerns about discrimination," he says. Even so, Greely says California's requirement for Y chromosome testing is a good safeguard. "Unlike some folks, I'm not opposed to the technique and especially not to its use in this case," he says.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html)

tragco
10-01-2010, 08:56 PM
How is your look at the fiber evidence going?

Thanks for asking, very sweet! Well, I looked for a specific fiber thread, fibers are mentioned all over the place here :) Patsy's fibers all wound up in the garrotte? No way that could happen by her just throwing herself on top of JonBenet after she was dead. Possibly a fiber of John's found in the crotch of her panties??? OMG. Also want to know if she was wiped down where did those fibers come from.

I also am getting sidetracked, too... I will read something interesting about the rope or whatever and start to look into that. The fiber evidence is very damning from what I have read.. but some of the evidence is just word of mouth so I don't know if it's factual.

It took the Ramseys 1 year to give the police their clothing. That looks guilty.

The only thing I have heard about some intruder/third party fibers is that some sort of brown fiber cannot be matched.

What I have decided, though, is that the case evidence was not butchered (relative gets to dress up like a cop and take whatever she wants), lost, misused, not asked for (phone records?), solely or even mainly due to ineptitude of the police department.

The reason this case was never looked at closely and never solved is because of one thing only: MONEY. The money and power those two had in the community. What power they didn't have, they bought- in the form of attorneys with connections. It makes me sick.

DeeDee249
10-01-2010, 10:25 PM
The brown fiber (also described as tan) could not be matched because it probably came from the American Girl doll that went missing and then mysteriously replaced by an anonymous person who sent it to JR's office after her death. Those dolls have different complexions; some are darker-skinned than others. And I think most men would describe them all as "brown".

Tadpole12
10-01-2010, 11:39 PM
Closely related family members will often have a high level of matching CODIS markers.
If this was the case with the crime scene DNA and LHP, LE would likely have investigated further.

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown approved the use of familial DNA searches in that state in 2008, the first state to do so. Since then, authorities in the state have used the technique 10 times. Other states have tacitly allowed the procedure, without having any regulation or even formal policy in place to govern its use.
The United States isn’t the first to use the technique, however. Britain has conducted familial DNA searches 70 times since 2004, yielding 18 matches and 13 convictions, according to Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at Georgetown University Law School, who spoke with CNN.
In one case, British authorities tracked down a serial rapist using the technique. The culprit, who became known as the shoe rapist because police say he stole and kept his victims’ shoes, was caught after authorities matched crime-scene DNA with DNA from the suspect’s sister, who was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/dna-database/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/dna-database/)

A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On 7 July, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the "Grim Sleeper."
Since 2008, California has allowed so-called familial DNA searches, in which investigators look for close-but-not-exact matches between DNA evidence collected at crime scenes and the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons. The method has a longer history in the United Kingdom, where it led to a conviction in a murder case in 2004. In Colorado, the only other U.S. state to allow it, the method led to a guilty plea in a car-theft case in Denver last year.
On Friday, ScienceInsider spoke with two scientists involved with the DNA search, senior criminalist Steven Myers and case-work laboratory manager Gary Sims, both based at the Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory in Richmond, California. They explained that the searches initially focus on 15 regions of DNA on 13 chromosomes. These include the 13 regions used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and two additional regions used in California. All of these regions contain genetic stutters called short tandem repeats, in which a pattern of base pairs repeats itself over and over. The number of repeats varies from person to person, and two people who are related are likely to have the same number of repeats at more of these sites. The lab's analysis also considers how frequently a given variation occurs in the general population: two people who share a rare variation are more likely to be related than are two people who share a common one.
Sims and Myers explained that the lab's software uses this information to generate a ranked list of the convicted felons in the DNA database who are most likely to be first-order relatives—parents, children, or full siblings—of the person a DNA sample came from. (The statistics aren't strong enough to identify more distant relatives, they say.) When both individuals in question are male, the lab also looks at a similar number of short tandem repeats on the Y chromosome, which should be an exact match between fathers and sons and between full brothers.
California allows familial DNA searches only for violent crimes in which the perpetrator is still believed to be a danger to society. Sims and Myers say they have run 10 searches so far. The first nine came up empty, including a 2008 search with DNA evidence from the Grim Sleeper crime scene. "We did not find anybody in the database who we thought was a potential relative," says Sims.
However, a second search in April 2010 did turn up a potential match: a young man named Christopher Franklin who was convicted last year on a felony weapons charge. The DNA search, along with the dates of the murders cast suspicion on Christopher Franklin's father. After an internal review of the evidence, investigators at the Bashinski lab notified the L.A. police, who followed the elder Franklin and eventually got a DNA sample from a discarded piece of pizza. Lonnie Franklin's DNA matched DNA from the crime scenes, and police arrested him at his home last week.
Although it remains to be seen whether Franklin will be convicted, Sims says the lab is proud of its work. "To put this whole thing together ... and see it pay off is very gratifying," he says. "Nobody popped champagne bottles or anything like that, but we all feel like we earned our pay."
The apparent success of familial DNA testing in such a high-profile case may encourage other states to adopt it, but civil-liberties groups and some legal scholars have concerns about privacy and ethics issues. Stanford Law School professor Hank Greely is concerned about what he sees as a high likelihood of false-positive tests. In a database with DNA from a million or more individuals, several hundred people might have a close enough match on the CODIS markers to suggest a blood relationship, Greely estimates. If those matches result in false accusations, the burden of being falsely accused would fall disproportionately to African-Americans, who are overrepresented in the U.S. prison population. "It does raise some concerns about discrimination," he says. Even so, Greely says California's requirement for Y chromosome testing is a good safeguard. "Unlike some folks, I'm not opposed to the technique and especially not to its use in this case," he says.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/scientists-explain-how-familial.html)

hey cynic.

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.


I had been reading avout familial dna and cases in Britain where family members willingly donated dna, leading to convictions.
How could this come into fruition with respect to this case,
the likelyhood? Is it an impossibilty?

claudicici
10-02-2010, 02:41 AM
...does the DNA on the long john's waistband really match the DNA found inside of the panties?

cynic
10-04-2010, 09:07 PM
hey cynic.

Familial DNA searches, although controversial have been used, and are being used by law enforcement.


I had been reading avout familial dna and cases in Britain where family members willingly donated dna, leading to convictions.
How could this come into fruition with respect to this case,
the likelyhood? Is it an impossibilty?
Hi Tadpole

It is used regularly in only two states, California and Colorado. The searches are within their own state DNA databases.

Additionally, a bill has been introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff, but not yet passed which attempts to introduce familial searching at the federal level of CODIS.
7/30/2010--Introduced.Utilizing DNA Technology to Solve Cold Cases Act of 2010 - Requires the Attorney General to adopt policies and procedures to ensure that:
(1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may conduct familial searches for DNA samples collected from crime scenes;
(2) state law enforcement agencies may request that the FBI conduct such searches in state investigations; and
(3) the privacy interests of persons identified in familial searches are protected. Defines "familial search" as a search of the offender index in the National DNA Index System in which a DNA sample from an unknown source collected from a crime scene is compared to such index to determine if a familial match exists between the DNA profile contained in such index and the DNA sample collected from the crime scene. Allows FBI familial searches to be conducted only if:
(1) no identical match for a DNA sample collected from a crime scene can be identified in the offender index; and
(2) the investigation for which DNA samples are collected involves murder, manslaughter, a sex offense against a minor, sexual assault, or an offense that involves a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.

cynic
10-04-2010, 09:10 PM
...does the DNA on the long john's waistband really match the DNA found inside of the panties?
Once upon a time, the RST were busy touting the fingernail DNA as somehow matching the other DNA. Unfortunately, for Lin Wood and others, Lou Smit let it slip that there were only two markers in common with the DNA in JBR’s panties.
There are at least two markers, clear distinct markers under the fingernails of the right hand.
-Lou Smit deposition
A full DNA profile consists of 13 markers, 10 markers are required to upload a profile to CODIS.
Although the initial analysis of one of the samples from JBR’s panties only yielded 9 ½ markers, they eventually “worked” it to 10 markers and thus met the minimum CODIS standard.
To say that two markers “matching” 2 of the 10 markers in the CODIS profile constitutes a “match” is preposterous.
They say that the DNA from the panties matches the DNA from touch DNA analysis of the long johns; unfortunately they have not said how many makers are matching.
I would need to know how many markers are actually matching before I could comment on the significance.
As they played fast and loose with the DNA evidence in the past, I am a bit wary with respect to these recent findings and use of the term, "match."

claudicici
10-04-2010, 09:48 PM
thank you so much cynic,I realize I still tend towards RDI because I can read the words they have spoken for myself.I can read how they have changed their stories,said IMO incredibly odd things and sometimes flat out lied.
The DNA evidence I never really understand.So is it correct,that the DNA from the panties are most likely from saliva and can come from anywhere and that the touch DNA on the Long John's may or may not match that DNA?
If only a few markers match however does that mean the long john touch DNA and the panty DNA might come from people that are related?....or is that not a factor?
....since the panty DNA was "stretched" could they have ended up with a profile that is incorrect?Could they have destroyed it instead of enhanced it and now there could never be an exact match?

cynic
10-08-2010, 05:36 PM
Thank you so much cynic, I realize I still tend towards RDI because I can read the words they have spoken for myself. I can read how they have changed their stories, said IMO incredibly odd things and sometimes flat out lied.

Yes, the Ramseys gave the BPD plenty of reasons to be under the “umbrella of suspicion.”


The DNA evidence I never really understand. So is it correct, that the DNA from the panties are most likely from saliva and can come from anywhere

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."

And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/ (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/)

There are several good reasons why I believe that the unknown DNA profile from the sample taken from JBR’s panties is from skin cells.
If it was saliva, why would they suggest that the profile is attributable to “human handling”
If the source was from a bodily fluid then it should have also been found on JBR’s body or from vaginal swabs that were taken at the autopsy.
Moreover, there are very sensitive and effective presumptive tests that identify bodily fluids.
For example, the RSID-Saliva kit is very effective at determining whether saliva is present.
RSID-Saliva gave positive results when saliva was diluted 1/128
Saliva could be detected with RSID-Saliva on swabs from the skin of a normal active individual 72 hours post saliva deposition
A positive result was still obtained from swabs of the skin that had been deposited with saliva even after the skin had been wet prior to swabbing
http://www.seidden.com/Saliva%20-%20archivo%205.pdf (http://www.seidden.com/Saliva%20-%20archivo%205.pdf)

Some of the confusion lies with the media presentation of the touch DNA results as determined by Bode Technology Group.
The press seemed to fawn over this “new” technology, when in reality it was repackaged technology that had been around for years.
The misconception was born that the only way to find DNA from skin cells was through the methods devised by Bode.
I’m sure that the people who were perpetuating this myth would be quite surprised to find out that those long johns could just as easily been swabbed and a DNA profile obtained.
Bode used razor scraping on the long johns.
Contact or touch DNA is obtained by swabbing or razor scraping.
With respect to clothing, the danger of razor scraping for DNA is that if you scrape too large of an area, the cells found may have their origin from several people, and therefore yield a profile that may be very difficult to analyze.
Even if great care is taken to minimize the scraped area, there is still a chance that the profile will be mixed and somewhat difficult to analyze.
The cells that are liberated from clothing may involve cells from skin, mucous, saliva or potentially other body fluids as long as their quantities and or distribution are such that they have not left a visible stain. (Visible stains will be swabbed.)
The advantage of swabbing is that it minimizes the sample area, and therefore minimizes the possibility of a badly mixed sample.
The disadvantage is that there may not be enough cells in the sample for a usable profile.
The advantage of razor scraping is that it liberates significant quantities of cells.
The disadvantage is that there are often mixed profiles due to the size of the area scraped.


and that the touch DNA on the Long John's may or may not match that DNA?

The problem is that we were never told how many markers were in the profile from the long johns. Simply saying that it matched doesn’t really mean much, and if only a few markers are in common, it has little significance.


If only a few markers match however does that mean the long john touch DNA and the panty DNA might come from people that are related?....or is that not a factor?

Depends on how few. If we take the example of the 2 marker fingernail DNA, it’s so meaningless it isn’t all that improbable that you may have those 2 markers.
With respect to samples from a crime scene, it’s more probable that a reasonable number of markers in common would mean that the same individual is responsible for the DNA as opposed to related individuals, unless other evidence or context indicates that more than one person may be involved.


....since the panty DNA was "stretched" could they have ended up with a profile that is incorrect?
Yes, and you can be assured that if this DNA evidence were to ever see the inside of a courtroom, it would be subject to a bitter dispute.

There are no generally accepted thresholds for how high peaks must be to qualify as a "true allele." Applied Biosystems, Inc., which sells the most widely used system for STR typing (the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer™ with the ProfilerPlus™ system) recommends a peak-height threshold of 150 RFU, saying that peaks below this level must be interpreted with caution. However, many crime laboratories that use the ABI system have set lower thresholds (down to 40 RFU in some instances). And crime laboratories sometimes apply their standards in an inconsistent manner from case to case or even within a single case. Hence, a defendant may be convicted in one case based on "peaks" that would not be counted in another case, or by another lab. And in some cases there may be unreported peaks, just below the threshold, that would change the interpretation of the case if considered.
Finding and evaluating low-level peaks can be difficult because labs can set their analytic software to ignore peaks below a specified level and can print out electropherograms in a manner that fails to identify low-level alleles. The best way to assess low-level alleles is to obtain copies of the electronic data files produced by the genetic analyzer and have them re-analyzed by an expert who has access to the analytic software.
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html (http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html)

See the post below for more info.


Could they have destroyed it instead of enhanced it and now there could never be an exact match?
If there is enough of a sample, it usually gets divided into a minimum of three parts (if possible) called aliquots.
Two of those are tested for DNA and one is set aside for testing in the future.
That is normal procedure, when there is enough sample. I don’t know whether there was enough sample in this case.

cynic
10-08-2010, 05:38 PM
....since the panty DNA was "stretched" could they have ended up with a profile that is incorrect?
DNA is not as objective as you might think. ..The findings suggest that the difference between prison and freedom could often rest on the opinions of a single individual.
Much of the DNA analysis conducted can suffer from worrying subjectivity and bias

The introduction of DNA evidence to the courtroom in the mid 1980s revolutionized forensic science, resulting in thousands of convictions and exonerating 255 wrongly convicted people so far in the US alone. The reason for more than 50 per cent of these wrongful convictions was unvalidated or improper forensic testing, including incorrect hair, blood or fingerprint analysis.

"It's not unreasonable to hold up DNA as a way that the rest of forensic science should be done," says William Thompson of the University of California, Irvine, and an occasional expert witness on DNA. "It is better validated, and often more carefully done and more rigorously interpreted than many areas of forensic science."

That's not the same as saying DNA is perfect, however. In a growing number of cases, DNA samples taken from crime scenes produce partial profiles, partly because smaller samples are collected. "Labs are trying to get more samples and they're trying to [get results from] lower and lower amounts of DNA," says John Butler, head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's genetics group, which aims to improve standards in DNA testing.

A standard DNA profile consists of a series of peaks relating to the number of repeating stretches of DNA found in certain genetic sequences, or alleles (see diagram). The repeats occur at specific locations on the chromosomes, called loci, and there are two alleles at each locus- one inherited from each parent. The number of repeats in each allele varies widely between individuals, allowing a person to be identified this way. Labs in the US typically look at 13 loci.

Yet in partial profiles, alleles may fail to show up, a phenomenon called "drop-out". False peaks in the profile created by imperfections in the analysis machine may also be mistaken for alleles. This is called "drop-in".

It gets more complicated when several people's DNA is mixed (see "Mix and mismatch"). Butler has reviewed more than 5000 DNA samples from 14 US labs and found that mixing is a common occurrence: 34 per cent of the samples he studied included DNA from two people, while 11 per cent were three or four-person mixtures.

Interpreting alleles in a mixed or partial sample is where the subjective opinion of an analyst could play a part. To test this, New Scientist teamed up with Itiel Dror, a neuroscientist at University College London and head of Cognitive Consultants International, and Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho.

We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.

In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".

If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.

"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.
Varying the identity of the suspect changed the answers that DNA analysts gave

Christine Funk, an attorney in the Office of the Public Defender for the State of Minnesota, says the results of New Scientist's survey have profound implications for criminal justice. "The difference between prison and freedom rests in the hands of the scientist assigned the case," she says.

Eric Buel, director of Vermont Forensic Laboratory in Waterbury agrees that there is a problem, although he doesn't think it will apply to every lab. "I would be a little bit concerned if one person excludes, and one person includes him. At the end of the day, we all should come to about the same answer on this stuff." Both he and Butler suggest that inconsistencies in analysts' training may be partly to blame.
Variable thresholds

The problem of subjective interpretation could be further exacerbated by differences in procedure between labs. According to a second survey conducted by New Scientist, many crime labs set their own thresholds for how high a peak must be to demonstrate the presence of an allele, and these can be inconsistently applied.

New Scientist sent a questionnaire to crime labs in the US, Canada, UK and Australia. Of the 19 that replied, we found that four labs routinely allow analysts to use their discretion when interpreting peaks whose height is below their statistical cut-off. A further two said that although it wasn't routine, there were circumstances when analysts could use their discretion. Fifteen labs said that they did not have a minimum requirement below which someone would be excluded from a mixture.

So what can be done? This year, the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), which issues guidance to US labs performing forensic DNA analysis, published new recommendations regarding the interpretation of forensic DNA. These include a suggestion that labs develop strict criteria for deciding what denotes the presence of an allele, and what amount of DNA constitutes the minimum for a profile to be constructed. Labs should also document and define any assumptions used in the analysis of a mixture. "The bottom line is that you want to be as consistent and accurate as possible," says Butler, who chaired the SWGDAM committee.

It seems lab managers would welcome consistent rules. Forensic lab directors at the 19 labs we surveyed also provided their views about how their analysis is currently done: 15 either agreed or strongly agreed that interpretation procedures should be based on national standards, and 11 agreed or strongly agreed that decisions over alleles should not be based on analyst opinion.

Labs must also take steps to avoid bias. Butler says that some labs continue to insist upon seeing suspect profiles before analysing evidence from the crime scene, which could lead to biased decision-making (see "Crime Scene Investigation: Impartiality"). Analysts also often know too much about a suspect and other evidence to be impartial, and public labs often have close ties to police. "Crime labs, including DNA labs, should not be under the control of a law enforcement agency," says one US analyst, who wished to remain anonymous. "We are scientists, not cops or prosecutors."

In our survey using the Georgia sample, respondents were blinded to contextual information about the case. Larry Mueller of the University of California in Irvine says we may have seen different results if the data had been presented to them by police officers or prosecution lawyers. "The difference between you giving them the data and saying 'what do you make of it?' and the local district attorney giving them the data and saying: 'We've arrested someone, is his profile in here?' is huge," he says.

Bruce Budowle, a former head of the FBI's DNA lab, would also like to see labs employ a second analyst to review initial conclusions, and all of this data be made available to defence teams.

Eighteen of the labs that we surveyed said they already conduct independent reviews. However, in the majority of cases, the reviewer is allowed to see the first analyst's conclusions, as well as the original data. "Technical peer reviews are a good step, but I can point to several examples where peer-reviewers just rubber-stamp the cases," says a different US analyst, who works in a private DNA lab that carries out case work for the police. In the case of a disagreement, 15 of the labs said a supervisor would be called in to make the final call, but only two labs said that this disagreement would be documented in their final report.

Still, when done correctly, DNA remains a powerful tool for fighting crime, says Budowle. "Are there cases done wrongly? Absolutely, there have been cases," he says. "Are they the vast majority? No, it's a small number."

Buel adds that some DNA labs are beginning to accept that improvements need to be made. "DNA analysis is still relatively young. It may take us a while to make sure we're all playing by the same set of rules," he says. "At the end of the day, I think we're all interested in making sure we get the right person. DNA is headed in the right direction, but as in any field, you can make it better."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true)

madeleine
10-26-2010, 09:06 AM
:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

1997-04-07: Geraldo Rivera Show Discussion Forum, "Suspects"
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)

jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.


:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

joeskidbeck
10-26-2010, 10:26 AM
:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

1997-04-07: Geraldo Rivera Show Discussion Forum, "Suspects"
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)

jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.


:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

Could she have tried any harder to confuse the issue???? John as well as 30% of the population? Since when does JR share dna with 30% of the population? How in this world could people actually pay any attention to this woman? I'm out of words now, so I'll just shut up, which is what she should have done years ago!!!!!

madeleine
10-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Re 30% ...I guess she meant there were not enough markers maybe?

Whatever........this hit me right in the face cause I've always wondered whose semen or dna they actually found at the scene OR on the blanket in the suitcase....was it really JAR's?maybe not.

How hard is it anyway to switch some lab samples..........after everything I've seen in this case.....

they thought it was semen but it turned out to be blood....and so many other confusing issues..........makes you wonder.........

wonderllama
02-10-2011, 02:00 AM
Sorry to bump an older thread, but I spent a while reading it this arvo and it is filled with great debate, great information and considerations by both sides of the argument.

HUZZAH!

qtc
02-11-2011, 09:28 PM
It took the Ramseys 1 year to give the police their clothing. That looks guilty.


Can someone expand on this? I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I cannot use the search (Ive tried and can never find what I am looking for).


It seems that I have heard that the police didnt ask for the clothing for testing...

and that the Ramsey's could even remember what they had worn that day a year later?

UKGuy
02-12-2011, 09:56 AM
Can someone expand on this? I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I cannot use the search (Ive tried and can never find what I am looking for).


It seems that I have heard that the police didnt ask for the clothing for testing...

and that the Ramsey's could even remember what they had worn that day a year later?

qtc,
Its just what it says. The Ramseys took one year to hand over the clothing they wore that day.

And nobody can prove one way or the other if what was handed in was the actual clothing or new purchases from Bloomingdales or wherever?


.

SunnieRN
02-12-2011, 02:26 PM
If I remember correctly, they were not asked for their clothing for almost a year. After the request, it took them 4 months to actually turn the items in. When BPD got the items, there was suspicion, to say the least, that they were not the actual items of clothing. The sweater that was supposed to be Patsys was too small for her to wear. I think it is interesting that they never asked for Burkes clothing.

DeeDee249
02-13-2011, 10:32 PM
If I remember correctly, they were not asked for their clothing for almost a year. After the request, it took them 4 months to actually turn the items in. When BPD got the items, there was suspicion, to say the least, that they were not the actual items of clothing. The sweater that was supposed to be Patsys was too small for her to wear. I think it is interesting that they never asked for Burkes clothing.

I have to say I blame the BRD completely for this one. They claimed that some of the clothing they were sent seemed new, or much-laundered. How could they possibly think they'd get it in the same condition it was in that night? The only way to do that would have been to have the Rs turn it over as they left the house for the last time that night, and once the BPD got the photos of the White's party, if the clothing they were given seemed different, they could have gotten a warrant (hopefully) to get it.
I can't fault the Rs for turning over the wrong clothes. It is exactly what guilty people would do, as as the PBD suspected them, they should have expected nothing less.
BR shouldn't have been allowed to leave at all, IMO. Even though it was not known to be a murder at that point, he was right down the hall from JB's room, and if she was supposed to have been taken from her bedroom, he was an important witness. Had the PBD wanted him to stay, and the Rs fought it, that in and of itself lends credence to their guilt. They should have INSISTED the BPD try to find out what their son saw or heard.

madeleine
03-04-2011, 08:45 AM
http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm

J. RAMSEY: There is unidentified DNA that was found under her fingernails and on her underwear.

KING: It could have been there from five day ago.

P. RAMSEY: Oh, please.

THOMAS: No, there are other sources other than the killer for this DNA report.
P. RAMSEY: Why would it be under her fingernails and her underwear?

J. RAMSEY: If there are other sources, then tell me who it is? But until we know who it is, I'm hopeful that that DNA belongs to the killer.


---------------

so the unknown dna is not the only dna they found.....interesting
and JR is eager to find out to whom it belongs...

Agatha_C
03-04-2011, 06:10 PM
If I remember correctly, they were not asked for their clothing for almost a year. After the request, it took them 4 months to actually turn the items in. When BPD got the items, there was suspicion, to say the least, that they were not the actual items of clothing. The sweater that was supposed to be Patsys was too small for her to wear. I think it is interesting that they never asked for Burkes clothing.



Sunnie,

What makes this all the more strange, is that Linda Arndt was made to go home that same day and change her clothing, then she was to hand them over to LE, being that she had carried the body to the Christmas tree (which in his book JR claims to have placed her under the tree). Why did the Detective have to turn over her clothing but the family didnt? Hmmmmm, can we say cover up on a grand scale.

madeleine
03-07-2011, 12:13 PM
The DNA found contained only 10 of 13 markers used for identification and was not from blood or semen.

says G.McCrary

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/16.html

finally a source

madeleine
03-10-2011, 01:41 PM
there is a poster on another forum who keeps on ranting and ranting about the alledged dna found under JB's fingernails that matches the DNA found in the panties and on the longjohns.
does ANYONE know of a report that confirms this?
i only heard it from the R's lawyers,not even ML mentions something like this.
pls,IDI's,show me a real source for this.

Tadpole12
03-10-2011, 02:31 PM
Heyya madeleine.

uhm, if EM is a valid source:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nllcQW9QzC0&feature=autoplay&list=ULJZ5-eOxXFVs&index=2&playnext=7
Erin Moriarty on Court TV
December 18, 2004
(1:05)
Q: Erin, dna profile from where?
Where did this mystery dna come from?
EM: Well, there are two blood spots on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear
that she was wearing the night she was murdered.
And, originally the police only had one blood spot tested
and there was not enough dna.
When they finally went, looked at the other blood spot,
there was enough to do PCR and according to the Denver Police Crime Lab,
they feel very confident there was no contamination
and that they do infact have a complete dna profile for the person who left that dna.
Now why they beleive it's the killer is because that dna,
it matches the two blood spots, the same dna in both, and nowhere else.
So it's not like somebody could, whoever packed the underwear, could sneeze on it,
it's nowhere else. Plus, while there isn't the complete dna profile under her fingernail,
many of the markers they found under her fingernails match that dna in the blood spot.
So, and I, from my sources within this case, they're really pretty confident that the dna
is that of the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. And I should
point out, it does not match anyone in the Ramsey family.

madeleine
03-10-2011, 02:36 PM
it matches the two bloodspots? :waitasec:

thanks Tad and yep I don't consider her a valid source

madeleine
03-10-2011, 02:43 PM
once they say it was JB's dna they found under her nails because she tried to remove the ligature while she was strangled.
then they say she fought the intruder and that's how his dna got under her nails.
but ML never mentioned it and I BET she would have if this would have been FACT or usable in court.
but all this goes down the toilet anyway since we know that the coroner didn't use the proper clipings,so....end of story anyway


what if the DNA belongs to another dead patient Meyer touched before JB's autopsy?he's not known as Mr.Perfect so it's not impossible.he touched her clothing,didn't he.
wouldn't that be just................i would say funny,but............

DeeDee249
03-10-2011, 11:44 PM
once they say it was JB's dna they found under her nails because she tried to remove the ligature while she was strangled.
then they say she fought the intruder and that's how his dna got under her nails.
but ML never mentioned it and I BET she would have if this would have been FACT or usable in court.
but all this goes down the toilet anyway since we know that the coroner didn't use the proper clipings,so....end of story anyway


what if the DNA belongs to another dead patient Meyer touched before JB's autopsy?he's not known as Mr.Perfect so it's not impossible.he touched her clothing,didn't he.
wouldn't that be just................i would say funny,but............

NONE of JB's skin, blood or tissue was found under her fingernails. There were NO scratches on JB's neck. She was not awake when she was garroted; she did not struggle against it.
We ALL have DNA belonging to other people under our nails, as well as our own. And yes, even official sources stated the fingernail DNA was useless because of Mayer's contamination. He had used the same clippers on OTHER corpses. NONE of those corpses was tested against that DNA. ALL of the fingernail DNA was degraded (old). The panty DNA was not. They do not have the same source.
Mayer DID touch her clothing, he removed it. And I'd say it is almost certain that he pulled the longjohns and panties down by the waistband.

wonderllama
03-11-2011, 12:14 AM
I think more to the point DeeDee....Christmas Day you're going to be touching A LOT of stuff as a kid and if she got home at 10pm, she won't have had a wash, so the entire Christmas Day journey, 24 hours of unwrapping, playing with presents, eating, drinking and visiting other houses....well, that's a lot of potentials under those nails.

Agatha_C
04-06-2011, 01:21 PM
Big question here...

Isn't the TDNA irrelevant to the case being that it wasnt collected at the scene or from the body of the victim. I mean it was collected at the lab years later how could it even be considered serious evidence?

DeeDee249
04-06-2011, 05:20 PM
The coroner should have been wearing gloves when e touched her, but he would have certainly touched other things while wearing them. We KNOW he used unsterile clippers and did not follow protocol when clipping the nails, he was thought to have used the same clippers on other bodies before using them on JB. It's the same for the gloves. He may have not even used a fresh pair before handling JB's body, especially before dissection, when he removed her clothing.

cynic
04-06-2011, 09:04 PM
Big question here...

Isn't the TDNA irrelevant to the case being that it wasnt collected at the scene or from the body of the victim. I mean it was collected at the lab years later how could it even be considered serious evidence?
You can guarantee that a good attorney would have great time with the DNA in this case.

You might find this interesting, BTW.

COLORADO CORONERS ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER
SUMMER 2007
Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA, there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf (http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf)

Agatha_C
04-07-2011, 12:11 AM
You can guarantee that a good attorney would have great time with the DNA in this case.

You might find this interesting, BTW.

COLORADO CORONERS ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER
SUMMER 2007
Trace DNA Precautions
By The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Laboratories

Have you ever thought about what happens to objects when you breathe on them, cough or sneeze near them, talk over them, or even adjust your glasses or wipe your brow while wearing gloves? All of these offer the potential to deposit your DNA on surfaces, usually unknowingly!
Remember when we used to wear gloves and masks to avoid getting something from a body or scene? Technology has changed the way we need to do our business.
Our intent is to provide a brief overview of what can happen at scenes, in a lab, morgue or autopsy room, and what information can be obtained from DNA as analyzed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
What are some precautions we can all take to minimize this “trace DNA” from ourselves? This is the classic two-edged sword. We have the sensitivity to get identifiable DNA from someone’s finger touching a light switch or doorknob (such as a perpetrator); however, this same sensitivity can allow our own DNA to be found during an analysis!
Since we are analyzing small amounts of DNA, there is also the potential of removing DNA from an item that may have significance to the case.
Let’s address DNA concerns at the scene, in the lab, morgue or autopsy room and finally the information we can obtain from DNA analysis.

Scene:
The weapon such as the grip of a firearm, the trigger of a firearm, or the handle of a knife may have DNA from the person who handled that weapon.
The body of the deceased may have DNA from someone who has manually strangled the victim. A ligature used to bind or strangle may contain DNA.
Clothing items may contain DNA of someone who has handled the clothing of the deceased.
Skin touched in the process of moving a victim in some fashion or dressing or undressing a victim may have foreign DNA.
A suspect (or anyone) may also leave DNA if they happen to cough sneeze, or spit accidentally (while talking) over or on the deceased. The doorknob used to enter and exit the room or other objects that may be present in the path from the entry way to the body.

Morgue, autopsy room, or lab:
The items mentioned above need to be handled with caution if they do end up in one of these places, especially the clothing items. Remember the removal of DNA is as significant as the addition of your DNA to an object.
We need to think about the potential for contamination from previous deceased, autopsies, or evidence; even scissors that are used to cut clothing from one body may transfer DNA to a second body or object if not cleaned.
http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf (http://coloradocoroners.org/newsletters/summer2007.pdf)



This was amazing Cynic, thank you.

Agatha_C
07-14-2011, 01:40 PM
7. How do people transfer/deposit skin cell DNA?

Primary and Secondary Transfer

(Skin cells continually flake off at rate of ~35,000 dead skin cells per minute)

SHEDDER INDEX
A group of 29 people were tested for their ability to deposit their DNA profile onto touched objects. It was found that a typical good shedder leaves a complete profile on the surface of a plastic tube after contact of only 10 seconds, whereas at the other end of the scale a poor shedder will leave only a few alleles, possibly with several loci dropping out completely.

PRIMARY TRANSFER
Work was carried out to determine whether DNA profiles could be obtained from clothing; specifically, plain white T-shirts. After 8 hours wear, more of the wearer’s DNA was recovered from the front of the Tshirt than the back. Targeting the neck area maximized the chance of obtaining a useful result. In a series of simulated assaults, where one person grabbed the shoulder of another for a period of 30 seconds, mixed profiles were obtained from the grabbed area of the T-shirts. The “assailant” always contributed the major component to this mixture, regardless of his/her shedder type.

SECONDARY TRANSFER
Experiments were carried out to determine whether it was possible for individual A to transfer his DNA to individual B through contact, who could in turn transfer A’s DNA onto an object. We began with a scenario which was most likely to yield a result: a good DNA shedder (A) shook hands with a poor shedder (B), who then gripped a plastic tube for 10 seconds. The results from swabs of the tubes showed that on five separate occasions all of the good shedder’s profile was recovered, with none of the poor shedder’s alleles appearing. The experiment was then repeated, but with the introduction of a delay of 30 minutes between the time of the handshake and the tube-holding. The results indicated that although the poor shedder deposited some alleles, secondary transfer of the good shedder’s DNA still occurred.

PERSISTENCE
Many factors may affect the persistence of low level DNA; time, temperature, humidity, etc. While it is unreasonable to test every combination of variables, some generic experiments have been undertaken and certain scenarios addressed. A time-study of the persistence of DNA is currently underway, where touched items have been stored at room temperature and tested to find out how much DNA can be recovered after certain periods of time. full profiles were still recovered from surfaces touched by a good shedder even after 4 months, whereas a marked decrease in the recovery of the poor shedder’s DNA was observed.
An exchange of identical wrist-watches between certain shedder types was carried out to ascertain the period of time needed for the original wearer’s DNA profile to be replaced by that of the new wearer. Generally we found that a good shedder completely replaced the original wearer’s profile in 2-3 weeks, and after only a few days had become the major component of a mixture. An example of this is shown in In contrast, a poor shedder typically took around 2 weeks just to comprise the major component.
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf (http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/murray.pdf)

We have shown that there is a difference between individuals in their tendency to deposit DNA on an item when it is touched. While a good DNA shedder may leave behind a full DNA profile immediately after hand washing, poor DNA shedders may only do so when their hands have not been washed for a period of 6 h. We have also demonstrated that transfer of DNA from one individual (A) to another (B) and subsequently to an object is possible under specific laboratory conditions using the AMPFISTR®SGM Plus™ multiplex at both 28 and 34 PCR cycles. This is a form of secondary transfer. If a 30 min or 1 h delay was introduced before contact of individual B with the object then at 34 cycles a mixture of profiles from both individuals was recovered. We have also determined that the quantity and quality of DNA profiles recovered is dependent upon the particular individuals involved in the transfer process. The findings reported here are preliminary and further investigations are underway in order to further add to understanding of the issues of DNA transfer and persistence.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6W-46PBY9D-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52d90b1ae7d70c8cc6b96f57dc407596 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6W-46PBY9D-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52d90b1ae7d70c8cc6b96f57dc407596)

Objects handled by many individuals all produced profiles with multiple alleles of varying intensity. To determine the effect of multiple handlers, we exchanged polypropylene tubes between individuals (2 or 3, 10 min each) with different genotypes. Although the material left by the last holder was usually present on the tube, that of previous holders was also retrieved to varying extents. The strongest profile obtained was not always that of the person who last held the object, but was dependent on the individual. We regularly observed profiles of previous holders of a tube from swabs of hands involved in these exchanges, showing that in some cases material from which DNA can be retrieved is transferred from object to hand (secondary transfer).
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf (http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromFingerprints.pdf)

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item. “It has also been shown that a full profile can be recovered from secondary transfer of epithelial cells (from one individual to another and subsequently to an object) at 28 cycles [the standard method].”
“The full DNA profile of one individual was recovered from an item that they had not touched while the profile of the person having contact with that item was not observed. This profile was also detected using standard 28-cycle amplification
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf (http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf)

Secondary transfer refers to the fact that, through physical contact with other people, individuals can inadvertently carry and deposit other people’s DNA onto objects of evidence. For example, two people shaking hands will transfer their own DNA to each others’ hands. If each then goes on to touch another object such as a coffee mug, baseball bat, knife etc., they could transfer the other’s skin cells to the object. If that object is a murder weapon, the identification of DNA through LCN could prove problematic and misleading.
• Variable shedding refers to the extent to which different people shed their skin cells in different quantities under different circumstances. Some people are more likely than others to leave behind their DNA in the form of skin cells. Through research at the FSS, it has been found that there are, for example, “heavy shedders,” “medium shedders,” and “light shedders.” Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA or strongest profile.
• The amount of DNA deposited can also be affected by certain actions taken by the individual. Washing of one’s hands will, for a period of time, decrease the amount of skin cells a person deposits on other objects. Additionally, the amount of perspiration exerted at the time the object is being held may also affect the amount of skin cells that are deposited. Both of these scenarios could adversely affect results upon LCN-DNA analysis.
• Given the nature of variable shedding and secondary transfer, the risk of obtaining a mixture is increased when applying a technology with increased sensitivity such as LCN. It is impossible to amplify the “right” DNA profile because all of the DNA that is contained in a biological evidence sample will be amplified.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf)

“It has also been demonstrated that DNA containing material can be deposited onto surfaces that without physical contact being made. In 2003, Rutty carried out a series of experiments to determine the extent to which a crime scene could be contaminated by crime scene investigators (Rutty et al. 2003). A series of experiments were carried out to investigate the level of DNA deposition after 15 minutes of silence or talking, with and without physical activity. The level of DNA deposition after 10 seconds coughing was also tested. The results of these experiments showed that high levels of DNA could be detected after 15 minutes of talking, whilst kneeling, even when a face mask was worn. It was hypothesized that the detected DNA could have arisen from orally projected saliva particles or could be due to the sloughing of epithelial cells around the area that the face mask was in contact with the face (Rutty et al. 2003). In order to distinguish the contribution of orally projected biological material from shed epithelial cells a second set of experiments were conducted by Rutty‟s group (Port et al. 2006). These follow-up experiments greatly simplified the model used in Rutty‟s original work to investigate orally projected biological material only. The results of these experiments showed that DNA-containing biological material could be detected up to 184cm (72 inches) away from the donor and a full DNA profile could be detected in the area immediately in front of the donor after only 30 seconds of talking (Port et al. 2006).”
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4529/1/PhD%20Thesis%20EAMG%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf (https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4529/1/PhD%20Thesis%20EAMG%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf)

Secondary Transfer and Scene Technicians
The body of an adolescent female was found on a couch in her home where she lived with her mother and younger brother. She was wearing only a shirt and bra at the time of discovery. She was determined to have died of "asphyxia secondary to manual strangulation." She had a history of sexual abuse, suggested by the absence of her hymen and numerous anal scars, as well as a history of promiscuity. The DNA of one of her mother's lovers was found on her perineum, in the form of sperm.
Given the location and circumstances of the crime, the precise conditions of this exchange could not be reliably established. One possibility is that the suspect was engaged in some form of sexual activity with the victim, and that sperm transferred to her perineum as a result. However, the suspect and the victim's mother had sexual relations in the mother's bed, where the victim had been playing previously with her brother. There were also reports that the suspect and the victim's mother may have had sexual relations on the couch, were the victim would have been sitting. Additionally, a review of the crime scene video shows several evidence technicians moving evidence around on the couch and other locations, and then touching the victim's body in multiple locations, examining her body as it is being photographed, with and without gloves.

Given these circumstances, and the victim's history, the following are potential evidence transfer relationships in this case:
From the suspect to the victim during a forced sexual assault;
From the suspect to the victim during a consensual (but unlawful) sexual encounter;
From the couch to the victim's perineum;
From the mother's bed to the victim's perineum;
From the scene technician's fingers to the victim's perineum
http://www.profiling.org/journal/vol1_no1/jbp_ed_january2000_1-1.html (http://www.profiling.org/journal/vol1_no1/jbp_ed_january2000_1-1.html)

Secondary and Tertiary Transfer

Transfer of DNA is seen with variable degrees of efficiency in each of the two types of transfer experiments conducted. In most cases the transferred DNA was a lower concentration than the DNA of the individual to whom it was transferred, however, this was not observed in all instances.
In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels and in none of the experiments with the other towel. In each of these sets of experiments the towel was exposed to the individuals DNA from only one face washing and drying. Larger quantities of DNA would be expected to be deposited on the towel from multiple uses of the towel.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf (http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson%20Study.pdf)

I believe that secondary transfer of foreign DNA may account for the DNA found on the panties and long johns. The transfer may have been a result of contact with these articles of clothing by JBR herself, or perhaps by JR and/or PR as well. Another possibility may also be transfer via a DNA-laden wash cloth or towel that may have been previously used by someone untested/cleared by LE.
These are only some of the possibilities, and I don’t dismiss that perhaps the long johns and panties may have been contaminated at some point after they were collected and taken into evidence. (Especially in light of the way the fingernails were handled.)
The theory that I presently believe is the most likely explanation of the DNA evidence in this case is below.

8. The Mixture Theory:

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery”)
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578 (http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578)

I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all. (At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.
To illustrate, consider the following very simplified 5 marker profile:
JonBenet (5,12), (8,9), (3,3), (6,4), (9,12)
Patsy (5,8), (7,9), (4,3), (6,11), (9,5)
John (3,12), (8,10), (3,6), (8,4), (7,12)

(Note that because I am using JBR’s parents in the example, JBR is receiving one allele from JR and PR at every marker)

The mixed profile from this example found in the bloodstain would be:
(3,5,8,12), (7,8,9,10), (3,4,6), (4,6,8,11), (5,7,9,12)

You then remove the victim profile and are left with the following alleles to explain:
(3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)

The lab is saying that there are two possibilities:
There is an unidentified male with the following profile responsible for DNA found in the blood stain: (3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)
Or, it was from a mixture involving family members.
Clearly it appears that the DA chose to believe that it was an intruder rather than a Ramsey family member.
The following is one possible explanation of how the mixture happened:
John Ramsey breaks a paint brush previously used by Patsy and containing her DNA. The portion of handle now containing both his and Patsy’s DNA (skin cells) is inserted into JBR’s vagina causing a small amount of bleeding. The size 12 panties are put on, and JBR’s blood mixed with JR’s and PR’s DNA is deposited. JR pulls up the long johns which PR admittedly handled earlier and once again a mixture of their DNA is left behind.
The Bode lab simply found and declared a match to the same mixed profile found in the panty underwear sample.

Just to be clear, some may be under the impression that touch DNA from the long johns is the crucial DNA in this case. That is not true. The partial profile in CODIS from the DNA in the panties is the foundation. All other DNA will continue to be compared against that partial profile.
If that profile is wrong because it is merely a blend of alleles from Ramsey family members (probably just PR and JR), then it completely invalidates the “intruder” theory, at least insofar as support from DNA tested to date is concerned.

9. Conclusions:

· This is not a DNA case.

· Secondary transfer or a DNA mixture may have led to an imaginary “intruder” profile.

· Efforts should be made to clarify the DNA mixture in the panties as that may have caused a false entry to have been uploaded into the CODIS database.

· Technology is now available to isolate male DNA from a mixture involving both male and female DNA. Y-STR testing should be done on the available DNA samples from the long johns and panties and those results compared to a buccal swab from John Ramsey.

· Other items of evidence that would be difficult to explain by an intruder theory should also be tested using Touch DNA analysis. These items should include at least the ligature and paint brush handle.

· At the very least, the current DA should repeal the Ramsey exoneration and apologize to the public that someone as utterly incompetent as Mary Lacy was ever allowed to hold a position of authority whereby she was able misdirect an important investigation for so long.

· The science of DNA profiling is sound.
But, not all of DNA profiling is science.

10. Closing Argument:

“I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.” - Wendy Murphy




Cynic,

First let me start be asking if you are alright? No word from you in a while and Im starting to worry. I wouldnt blame you if you needed a break. Right now, I need a drink.... Anyway...

I need to know if I can borrow some of this post and the ones that started this thread. I warn you, its a dark and murky place I go...LOL.... But I have some folks that need schooling. I would of course give you credit as well as this link.. If you would rather I didnt, I will completely understand...

Thanks... Hoping you are sipping drinks with umbrellas and soaking up the sun....

smurf86
07-14-2011, 03:26 PM
I was just about to ask the same thing, and I'm sure cynic lurks over at CS too:)

SunnieRN
07-14-2011, 04:45 PM
You know, in revisiting this thread and re-reading, it is truly scary to think about touch DNA implications. I think about my career, for example. I am a 'good shedder' and I touch people for 13 hours at work. Also thousands of surfaces. Compound that by being out in the public and there is a huge amount of my DNA everywhere. :crazy:

Agatha_C
07-14-2011, 05:11 PM
You know, in revisiting this thread and re-reading, it is truly scary to think about touch DNA implications. I think about my career, for example. I am a 'good shedder' and I touch people for 13 hours at work. Also thousands of surfaces. Compound that by being out in the public and there is a huge amount of my DNA everywhere. :crazy:



Gives you a whole new perspective doesnt it Sunnie Girl? I have I told you lately, that I think you rock. Shed on my friend, just dont shed on the wrong person...LOL....

Agatha_C
07-14-2011, 05:11 PM
I was just about to ask the same thing, and I'm sure cynic lurks over at CS too:)



Great minds think alike Smurf!

SuperDave
07-14-2011, 07:13 PM
I was just about to ask the same thing, and I'm sure cynic lurks over at CS too:)

He does! I asked him to join us, smurf, but he said no. And given his reasons, I don't blame him!

SuperDave
07-14-2011, 07:14 PM
You know, in revisiting this thread and re-reading, it is truly scary to think about touch DNA implications. I think about my career, for example. I am a 'good shedder' and I touch people for 13 hours at work. Also thousands of surfaces. Compound that by being out in the public and there is a huge amount of my DNA everywhere. :crazy:

You're not the only one, Sunnie. We SHOULD be afraid of this, especially when it's in the hands of someone as ignorant about forensics as the Boulder DA!

SuperDave
07-14-2011, 07:15 PM
Great minds think alike Smurf!

The dark side is growing in strength...

cynic
07-16-2011, 04:05 PM
Cynic,

First let me start be asking if you are alright? No word from you in a while and Im starting to worry. I wouldnt blame you if you needed a break. Right now, I need a drink.... Anyway...

Thanks AC, well, 2 weeks of my absence was due to a vacation, but primarily I’ve been extremely busy and, unfortunately, probably will continue to be for another few months.
I have been trying to keep up with reading new posts here and at FFJ but I don’t have much time for getting into posting and especially posts that would require a lot of follow-up.
I noticed that you were gone for a while as well, but assumed it was Anthony case related, not sure why Becky hasn’t been around.


I need to know if I can borrow some of this post and the ones that started this thread. I warn you, its a dark and murky place I go...LOL.... But I have some folks that need schooling. I would of course give you credit as well as this link.. If you would rather I didnt, I will completely understand...

Thanks... Hoping you are sipping drinks with umbrellas and soaking up the sun....
What’s mine is yours, with the exception of a few things; I’ll have my lawyer contact your people to iron out the details. :D
Seriously though, take whatever you like from any of my posts anywhere and good luck; I’m familiar with who you are trying to “school,” and I hope you have the time, patience, and appropriate medication to deal with the situation.

SunnieRN
07-16-2011, 04:39 PM
Gives you a whole new perspective doesnt it Sunnie Girl? I have I told you lately, that I think you rock. Shed on my friend, just dont shed on the wrong person...LOL....


:floorlaugh: And just how would I know who the 'wrong' person is?? lol

Miss Aggie, I admire your patience in continuing to have patience in subjects that have been visited a plethora of times!!



You're not the only one, Sunnie. We SHOULD be afraid of this, especially when it's in the hands of someone as ignorant about forensics as the Boulder DA!

I have been afraid of this since I first heard of it SD. I find that the more information that comes out about it, the more people dig in their heels, thinking it solves cases, whereas it may be quite the opposite. This technology has the potential to implicate INNOCENT individuals. Scary indeed.


Cynic!! Great to see you and I hope to 'see' you again soon. I am about to snip and paste a bit of your dna information on another thread!! TIA!:seeya:

SuperDave
07-21-2011, 01:21 PM
I have been afraid of this since I first heard of it SD. I find that the more information that comes out about it, the more people dig in their heels, thinking it solves cases, whereas it may be quite the opposite. This technology has the potential to implicate INNOCENT individuals. Scary indeed.




You said it, kid! For all we know, it may have done that already.

SunnieRN
07-21-2011, 07:13 PM
You said it, kid! For all we know, it may have done that already.

As well as garnering a way to possibly make true DNA findnngs appear to be insignificant. To me that is the scariest part!

SunnieRN
07-21-2011, 07:57 PM
By the way Roy, in reading your signature paragraph:


The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet


I present your killer. (Cynic, this is great enough to post one more time!! Thanks):

8. The Mixture Theory:

“Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery”)
http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578

I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all. (At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.
To illustrate, consider the following very simplified 5 marker profile:
JonBenet (5,12), (8,9), (3,3), (6,4), (9,12)
Patsy (5,8), (7,9), (4,3), (6,11), (9,5)
John (3,12), (8,10), (3,6), (8,4), (7,12)

(Note that because I am using JBR’s parents in the example, JBR is receiving one allele from JR and PR at every marker)

The mixed profile from this example found in the bloodstain would be:
(3,5,8,12), (7,8,9,10), (3,4,6), (4,6,8,11), (5,7,9,12)

You then remove the victim profile and are left with the following alleles to explain:
(3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)

The lab is saying that there are two possibilities:
There is an unidentified male with the following profile responsible for DNA found in the blood stain: (3.8), (7,10), (4,6), (8,11), (5,7)
Or, it was from a mixture involving family members.
Clearly it appears that the DA chose to believe that it was an intruder rather than a Ramsey family member.
The following is one possible explanation of how the mixture happened:
John Ramsey breaks a paint brush previously used by Patsy and containing her DNA. The portion of handle now containing both his and Patsy’s DNA (skin cells) is inserted into JBR’s vagina causing a small amount of bleeding. The size 12 panties are put on, and JBR’s blood mixed with JR’s and PR’s DNA is deposited. JR pulls up the long johns which PR admittedly handled earlier and once again a mixture of their DNA is left behind.
The Bode lab simply found and declared a match to the same mixed profile found in the panty underwear sample.

Just to be clear, some may be under the impression that touch DNA from the long johns is the crucial DNA in this case. That is not true. The partial profile in CODIS from the DNA in the panties is the foundation. All other DNA will continue to be compared against that partial profile.
If that profile is wrong because it is merely a blend of alleles from Ramsey family members (probably just PR and JR), then it completely invalidates the “intruder” theory, at least insofar as support from DNA tested to date is concerned.

Smelly Squirrel
08-09-2011, 01:56 PM
I admit I am fairly new to this case but I have to say now that the reports about an unknown male's DNA on the longjohns matching DNA from the underwear does prove to me it was not the Ramseys. I've seen nothing in the rest of the evidence that definitively rules out an outside intruder. I suppose the Ramseys could have hired a hitman to do the job, but I doubt that.

I suppose it is also possible there is some problem in the DNA evidence unknown to us (I don't buy this "family mixture" idea at all), but as an outside investigator looking for the truth, that would be an inefficient an ineffective assumption to make, because you could say that for every single case and every piece of evidence, and then left never trusting any evidence report. It would be hyper-skepticism to take that view. I see no good reason to doubt this report. One could make speculations, but nothing founded.

I think the most honest and reasonable assessment to make is that, barring any new contradicting evidence, the reports made public about the DNA does tell me the killer was someone other than Ramseys.

Since I also believe other evidence does tell us the killer knew the Ramseys in some manner, this should still be a solvable case.

SuperDave
08-09-2011, 02:26 PM
I admit I am fairly new to this case but I have to say now that the reports about an unknown male's DNA on the longjohns matching DNA from the underwear does prove to me it was not the Ramseys. I've seen nothing in the rest of the evidence that definitively rules out an outside intruder. I suppose the Ramseys could have hired a hitman to do the job, but I doubt that.

I suppose it is also possible there is some problem in the DNA evidence unknown to us (I don't buy this "family mixture" idea at all), but as an outside investigator looking for the truth, that would be an inefficient an ineffective assumption to make, because you could say that for every single case and every piece of evidence, and then left never trusting any evidence report. It would be hyper-skepticism to take that view. I see no good reason to doubt this report. One could make speculations, but nothing founded.

I think the most honest and reasonable assessment to make is that, barring any new contradicting evidence, the reports made public about the DNA does tell me the killer was someone other than Ramseys.

Since I also believe other evidence does tell us the killer knew the Ramseys in some manner, this should still be a solvable case.

Well, that's sort of the issue right at hand, Smelly Squirrel: it's not a question of the DNA having problems that we don't know about. Getting past the problems we DO know about is a tall order by itself.

Smelly Squirrel
08-09-2011, 02:29 PM
They said DNA from two clothing items matched. So what problems do you mean?

cynic
08-09-2011, 07:04 PM
I think the most honest and reasonable assessment to make is that, barring any new contradicting evidence, the reports made public about the DNA does tell me the killer was someone other than Ramseys.

In order to develop a good understanding of the case, I would recommend reading:
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
The Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
The Bonita Papers:
http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm (http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm)
Police and DA’s office interviews of John and Patsy Ramsey:
Transcripts: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice
I have found that most people find the following helpful as well:
Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice

Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice

With respect to DNA specifically, I have posted extensively on the subject, so rather than repeat the information, have a look at the links below.
I believe that the “unknown” DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination and not the result of primary contact from an intruder.
There is simply too much circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys and if we follow sound investigative practice it is the overall forensic context of a case that determines the probative value of DNA evidence. There are documented cases of multiple matching DNA samples in a crime scene involving an unknown donor, and that DNA was found to have no bearing on who the perpetrator of the crime was.
The mere existence of DNA in a crime scene does not automatically make it the driving force of an investigation, or at least it shouldn't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132173&page=4

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA

Smelly Squirrel
08-10-2011, 03:38 AM
Thanks, Cynic. I did read your very informative posts at the start of this thread. Excellent DNA primer. The way I see it though, if it is true that the are 3 separate areas with matching DNA markers, then they are very likely from the killer. If there were just the one area with DNA (on the underwear), then the mixture theory could have merit. Three separate locations seems too unlikely to get the same mixture combination at each site. (I don't believe though that we know whether there is more than one DNA source on the long johns, but presumably there could be at least Patsy's DNA there from dressing Jonbenet).

If there were evidence otherwise that definitively shows it couldn't be an outside intruder, then I would have to reconsider, but I don't think there is. jmo

mtwentz
08-10-2011, 11:21 AM
Thanks, Cynic. I did read your very informative posts at the start of this thread. Excellent DNA primer. The way I see it though, if it is true that the are 3 separate areas with matching DNA markers, then they are very likely from the killer. If there were just the one area with DNA (on the underwear), then the mixture theory could have merit. Three separate locations seems too unlikely to get the same mixture combination at each site. (I don't believe though that we know whether there is more than one DNA source on the long johns, but presumably there could be at least Patsy's DNA there from dressing Jonbenet).

If there were evidence otherwise that definitively shows it couldn't be an outside intruder, then I would have to reconsider, but I don't think there is. jmo
My thoughts exactly, though we still can't rule out PR as the author of the RN.

SuperDave
08-10-2011, 12:55 PM
They said DNA from two clothing items matched. So what problems do you mean?

Well, most notably, the lack of a full DNA profile in order to GET a match.

"They" tried to claim the nail DNA was a "match" as well. Question of credibility, you know.

Smelly Squirrel
08-10-2011, 03:10 PM
Ah, so you mean you know other evidence has problems, not this evidence.

mtwentz
08-10-2011, 03:42 PM
In order to develop a good understanding of the case, I would recommend reading:
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
The Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
The Bonita Papers:
http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm (http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm)
Police and DA’s office interviews of John and Patsy Ramsey:
Transcripts: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
I have found that most people find the following helpful as well:
Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case - Forums For Justice (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404)

With respect to DNA specifically, I have posted extensively on the subject, so rather than repeat the information, have a look at the links below.
I believe that the “unknown” DNA is the result of innocent transfer or contamination and not the result of primary contact from an intruder.
There is simply too much circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys and if we follow sound investigative practice it is the overall forensic context of a case that determines the probative value of DNA evidence. There are documented cases of multiple matching DNA samples in a crime scene involving an unknown donor, and that DNA was found to have no bearing on who the perpetrator of the crime was.
The mere existence of DNA in a crime scene does not automatically make it the driving force of an investigation, or at least it shouldn't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132173&page=4

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22)

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187598&postcount=34)
Cynic, thanks for the links. I think I understand why the DNA evidence doesn't convince you of the intruder theory...and I'm starting to lean once again to someone in the house being responsible.

SuperDave
08-10-2011, 04:10 PM
Ah, so you mean you know other evidence has problems, not this evidence.

WHAT??

Where did we go off the track here? The DNA was degraded, as in OLD. That's a problem!

Smelly Squirrel
08-10-2011, 07:28 PM
WHAT??

Where did we go off the track here? The DNA was degraded, as in OLD. That's a problem!

I guess we're talking past each other. You said the DNA had problems and I asked what was the problems with the long johns and the underwear DNA. Then you brought up the nail DNA. So are you now saying the long johns/underwear matching DNA is degraded? If so, according to who?

mtwentz
08-11-2011, 06:23 AM
I guess we're talking past each other. You said the DNA had problems and I asked what was the problems with the long johns and the underwear DNA. Then you brought up the nail DNA. So are you now saying the long johns/underwear matching DNA is degraded? If so, according to who?
I think SuperDave was saying that the DNA found mixed with JB's blood was incomplete as Cynic cited:
"One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.

Smelly Squirrel
08-12-2011, 03:44 PM
Yes, but the second spot is what is being matched to the long johns.

SuperDave
08-12-2011, 06:22 PM
I think SuperDave was saying that the DNA found mixed with JB's blood was incomplete as Cynic cited:
"One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.

Yeah, that's it, all right.

Also, it should be pointed out that the DNA itself did not get better. The testing methods just have gotten more sensitive.

Smelly Squirrel
08-12-2011, 06:39 PM
Yes, it's good that they have gotten better.

UKGuy
08-12-2011, 06:51 PM
Yes, it's good that they have gotten better.

Smelly Squirrel,

And as per the diligent DA, what you have not been told is, was there any Ramsey DNA on the size-12's. If so what type?

Fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on the size-12's, and because John went out of his way to say he only removed JonBenet's shoes, and neither parent admits to dressing JonBenet for the White's. How did the fibers magic themselves onto her size-12's beneath her longjohns?


.

SuperDave
08-12-2011, 07:31 PM
Yes, it's good that they have gotten better.

Not necessarily, Squirrel. It's only good if people know how to USE them. That's the big problem in this case: the people in charge didn't have that wisdom. The CSI effect was strong with them.

Smelly Squirrel
08-12-2011, 08:24 PM
How are they using anything wrong of relevance?

Smelly Squirrel
08-12-2011, 08:32 PM
And as per the diligent DA, what you have not been told is, was there any Ramsey DNA on the size-12's. If so what type?

We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.


Fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on the size-12's,

There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

DeeDee249
08-12-2011, 09:21 PM
We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.



There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Fibers do not exclude anyone. Fibers can INCLUDE someone or something (such as fibers from a car's carpets found on a murder victim may indicate the victim was in the car). Also, just because someone's fibers are not present, doesn't meant they were NOT there. It is WHERE the fibers were found that is important. They were found in and on items exclusive to the crime scene: wound into the knot of the garrote, on the INSIDE of the tape around her mouth, in the paint tote from which the brush used to make the garrote was taken and where a remnant of the brush was found, and on the INSIDE of a pair of panties found on a dead child.
In ALL cases, these fibers were from clothing worn by the parents THAT day. In addition, Patsy told LE she NEVER wore that fleecy red sweater jacket in the basement nor while painting. She was NOT the one who took that paint tote to the basement in the first place, she asked LHP to take it down there as she was setting up for the Rs party on the 23rd. Patsy said she used to keep her paint tote in the Butler's Pantry, and she asked LHP to bring it to the basement because she planned to set up a coat rack in the Butler's Pantry for guests' coats.

Smelly Squirrel
08-12-2011, 10:25 PM
Fibers do not exclude anyone. Fibers can INCLUDE someone or something (such as fibers from a car's carpets found on a murder victim may indicate the victim was in the car). Also, just because someone's fibers are not present, doesn't meant they were NOT there.

I agree with you. As I understand it, fibers can only exclude other fiber sources, not identify them. Fibers can be said to be to consistent with, but can't be said to be sourced to, a specific fiber source. My point was, it's inappropriate to say JR's shirt fibers were on the underwear. Fibers consistent with his shirt were found (possibly).


It is WHERE the fibers were found that is important. They were found in and on items exclusive to the crime scene: wound into the knot of the garrote, on the INSIDE of the tape around her mouth, in the paint tote from which the brush used to make the garrote was taken and where a remnant of the brush was found, and on the INSIDE of a pair of panties found on a dead child.
In ALL cases, these fibers were from clothing worn by the parents THAT day. In addition, Patsy told LE she NEVER wore that fleecy red sweater jacket in the basement nor while painting. She was NOT the one who took that paint tote to the basement in the first place, she asked LHP to take it down there as she was setting up for the Rs party on the 23rd. Patsy said she used to keep her paint tote in the Butler's Pantry, and she asked LHP to bring it to the basement because she planned to set up a coat rack in the Butler's Pantry for guests' coats.

The problem with all this is that the crime scene being in their house, their clothing fibers could plausibly be in many places And on that night, when Patsy put Jonbenet to bed, fibers could have transferred to Jonbenet's clothing and bedding.

We have only been given small snapshots of all the evidence, and these are often second hand and even some of which may be deliberately false, which all makes it hard to say anything with certainty.

DeeDee249
08-12-2011, 11:50 PM
I agree with you. As I understand it, fibers can only exclude other fiber sources, not identify them. Fibers can be said to be to consistent with, but can't be said to be sourced to, a specific fiber source. My point was, it's inappropriate to say JR's shirt fibers were on the underwear. Fibers consistent with his shirt were found (possibly).



The problem with all this is that the crime scene being in their house, their clothing fibers could plausibly be in many places And on that night, when Patsy put Jonbenet to bed, fibers could have transferred to Jonbenet's clothing and bedding.

We have only been given small snapshots of all the evidence, and these are often second hand and even some of which may be deliberately false, which all makes it hard to say anything with certainty.

I totally agree with your first paragraph,
But the problem with the next part it is that there was NO innocent way for the parents fibers to get where they were found innocently. Again- Patsy CLAIMED not to have worn her red jacket in the basement or while painting. JB's body was covered with an afghan, only her feet and lower legs exposed. Even in the basement, her panties were covered by lonhjohns and her white blanket. JR anf FW alone were seen (by each other) to have handled the tape on her mouth. Not Patsy- if her fibers were transferred, why ONLY her fibers. And why WEREN'T her fibers found on the panties, if she was the one who put them in the drawer.
Again, I agree with your last paragraph as well. We have little pieces of a puzzle that no one will ever see again. The house and its contends as they were then are GONE forever.
There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

UKGuy
08-13-2011, 05:58 AM
We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.



There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Smelly Squirrel,


We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely.

Sure but I am referring to what you have not been told!



There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Care to cite these conflicting reports?



but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading.

Fibers can identify and be traced to a source. Like your requirement for competing theories to be disconfirmed, discomfirming multiple sources for the fibers requires that there be a list of them. I would suggest to you in the case of John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt.




Your characterization is misleading.

Not quite. It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence, not an aspect of some greek tragedy. In accepting LW's argument regarding the fibers, which is based on a balance of probabilities, might it be, you are misleading yourself?

In another post


There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

As DeeDee249 remarks the DA has not informed you on this matter!


.

SuperDave
08-13-2011, 12:17 PM
I agree with you. As I understand it, fibers can only exclude other fiber sources, not identify them. Fibers can be said to be to consistent with, but can't be said to be sourced to, a specific fiber source. My point was, it's inappropriate to say JR's shirt fibers were on the underwear. Fibers consistent with his shirt were found (possibly).

Oh, yeah. I'm sure there were a million Israeli-made shirts in Boulder on Dec. 25, 1996!


The problem with all this is that the crime scene being in their house, their clothing fibers could plausibly be in many places And on that night, when Patsy put Jonbenet to bed, fibers could have transferred to Jonbenet's clothing and bedding.

That's precisely the point, Squirrel: they weren't FOUND in "many places." They were found in SPECIFIC areas where they should NOT have been, according to the Rs' story. I've only pointed that out a million times.

Did you SEE John's reaction when they told him? I thought he'd s**t his pants!

Smelly Squirrel
08-19-2011, 03:35 AM
I totally agree with your first paragraph,
But the problem with the next part it is that there was NO innocent way for the parents fibers to get where they were found innocently.

First, it's, if it is their fibers. "Consist with" does not necessarily equal "same source." Second, if it is their fibers, secondary transfer is a possibility. Third, we don't know all the fiber evidence, even if what we think we know is true.


Again- Patsy CLAIMED not to have worn her red jacket in the basement or while painting.

She lived in the same house. It's not so unimaginable that she came across the tray at some time, if it was primary transfer. Secondary transfer is also possible.


JB's body was covered with an afghan, only her feet and lower legs exposed. Even in the basement, her panties were covered by lonhjohns and her white blanket. JR anf FW alone were seen (by each other) to have handled the tape on her mouth. Not Patsy- if her fibers were transferred, why ONLY her fibers.

We don't know that only her matching fibers were found.


And why WEREN'T her fibers found on the panties, if she was the one who put them in the drawer.

Very confused by this question. Are you saying she didn't put them in a drawer? They were new panties, possibly in a package, wherein no fibers should be expected. Also, she wouldn't have bought them that same day (if she did at all); who knows what she was wearing at that time.


Again, I agree with your last paragraph as well. We have little pieces of a puzzle that no one will ever see again. The house and its contends as they were then are GONE forever.
There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

I would agree if his matching shirt fibers were in the panties, he needs to explain it. But that's a big if. As I just said in another thread, the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted yet leads me to believe the fiber evidence isn't that strong.

Smelly Squirrel
08-19-2011, 04:03 AM
We've been told that various Ramseys are consistent with the underwear DNA if you assume multiple contributors or a mixture. That info on page one of this thread. However, since that combination of markers was also found on the long johns on two places, it makes the mixture hypothesis much less likely. Smelly Squirrel,

Sure but I am referring to what you have not been told!

If there wer JR DNA on the panties and longjohns, he would be in jail by now I suspect.



There are conflicting reports on the fibers found, but at that, fibers can only exclude, not identify. Your characterization is misleading. Care to cite these conflicting reports?

Dark Fibers in Genital Area - JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia (http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber%20Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea)



Fibers can identify and be traced to a source.

They can't be traced to the precise source. They can only be said to be consistent with a source. Even DNA evidence doesn't tell you it a came from a specific person. It can only tell you a person's DNA profile matches the evidence profile (as may other people's DNA, at varying frequencies within a population).


Like your requirement for competing theories to be disconfirmed, discomfirming multiple sources for the fibers requires that there be a list of them. I would suggest to you in the case of John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt.

You have no idea whether the alleged fibers are common or rare. Being made in Israel (if it was) doesn't mean the shirt fibers are rare.



Fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt were found on the size-12's, Not quite. It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence,

You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report?


not an aspect of some greek tragedy.

?


In accepting LW's argument regarding the fibers, which is based on a balance of probabilities, might it be, you are misleading yourself?


What Lin Wood said in that interview about not having seen the report characterization and any other fiber evidence is exactly the right and fair way to look at it.


In another post


There is simply NO innocent way for JR's shirt fibers to get inside the panty crotch when he claimed NOT to have put them on her. Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

As DeeDee249 remarks the DA has not informed you on this matter!

I've already answered the shirt fibers. As to the other part,


Patsy claims JB put them on herself- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

She said Jonbenet could have put them on, she doesn't know if she did. And Jonbenet's DNA is found on the panties, from blood at least.

IDI generally doesn't say Jonbenet put the panties on anyway.


Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there?

Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

Smelly Squirrel
08-19-2011, 04:15 AM
Oh, yeah. I'm sure there were a million Israeli-made shirts in Boulder on Dec. 25, 1996!

If the fibers were matched to his shirt, that doesn't tell us how rare the fibers are. Being made in Israel doesn't necessarily make a fiber rare.


That's precisely the point, Squirrel: they weren't FOUND in "many places." They were found in SPECIFIC areas where they should NOT have been, according to the Rs' story. I've only pointed that out a million times.


So you've seen the full fiber evidence collected? Please share.


Did you SEE John's reaction when they told him? I thought he'd s**t his pants!

I didn't see it, but if I were told something that implied I raped and murdered my daughter, I'd be upset too.

Chili Fries
08-19-2011, 04:56 AM
I looked into the Bode Technologies lab a couple of years ago and was surprised to see their lack of quality system accreditations. I wrote them an e-mail asking about their quality assurance procedures but they never got back to me. I just checked out their website again and it looks like they've really improved in that aspect...now they hold an ISO 17025 (which is the international testing standard) and a couple of other accreditations. Seems obvious to me that this area was something they realized had to be improved so they did so in the last two years.

UKGuy
08-19-2011, 08:10 AM
If there wer JR DNA on the panties and longjohns, he would be in jail by now I suspect.



[/url]




They can't be traced to the precise source. They can only be said to be consistent with a source. Even DNA evidence doesn't tell you it a came from a specific person. It can only tell you a person's DNA profile matches the evidence profile (as may other people's DNA, at varying frequencies within a population).



You have no idea whether the alleged fibers are common or rare. Being made in Israel (if it was) doesn't mean the shirt fibers are rare.



You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report?



?



What Lin Wood said in that interview about not having seen the report characterization and any other fiber evidence is exactly the right and fair way to look at it.



I've already answered the shirt fibers. As to the other part,



She said Jonbenet could have put them on, she doesn't know if she did. And Jonbenet's DNA is found on the panties, from blood at least.

IDI generally doesn't say Jonbenet put the panties on anyway.



Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

Smelly Squirrel,


If there wer JR DNA on the panties and longjohns, he would be in jail by now I suspect.

Well your suspicion may be entirely incorrect, since JR is not in jail, having remarried recently, and of course you do not know if there was any JR dna on the underwear or longjohns. The negative position has never been claimed by the DA or Team Ramsey. Curious that!



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber%20Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea
(http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber%20Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea)
I assumed you were referring to official reports not individual assertions.



They can't be traced to the precise source. They can only be said to be consistent with a source. Even DNA evidence doesn't tell you it a came from a specific person. It can only tell you a person's DNA profile matches the evidence profile (as may other people's DNA, at varying frequencies within a population).

Fibers can be matched using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Polarized Light Microscopy [url]http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/polarized-light-microscopy

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/fibers


Analysis of fibers that are found on a victim will involve determining the types of fibers present at the scene. For example, a fiber can be transferred from a carpet to a body. This fiber will not be as significant as a fiber found on a victim that is not present anywhere else at the scene. If a similar fiber is found on a suspect, this can be a powerful piece of evidence linking the suspect to the scene.

Normally finding lets say, Levi Strauss fibers, at a crime scene are helpful if you have a suspect who wears similar jeans, but in court this trace evidence may not command much relevance as other people may be produced who wear similar mass marketed jeans. If those black fibers originate from an Iraeli manufactured cotton shirt, and unless you can magic up someone else locally wearing a similar Israeli made shirt, then the fiber evidence will link JR to the crime-scene. Your claim about only consistency being available is the inverse of the touch dna evidence where we have a dna profile but no match. Here we have a potential match and an identity which increases the balance of probability argument very close to 1.

As an aside consider the The Nebra Sky Disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Disc which people claim is wholly european in origin and incorporates astronomical information which predates the building of the Egyptian pyramids. Now those that disagree suggest it was manufactered in the near east and traded to europeans, or was even a forgery. All suggesting that ancient europeans, as long known, were stupid, savage and uncivilized. Now the copper in the bronze disk could come from anywhere, it might be consistent with multiple sources, but X-ray fluorescence determined that the copper was mined at Bischofshofen in Austria.



You have no idea whether the alleged fibers are common or rare. Being made in Israel (if it was) doesn't mean the shirt fibers are rare.

Who said anything about rarity or commonality. I was referring to any method for rejecting JR as a source for the fibers e.g. you must have a list of alternative sources. Thus decreasing the balance of probability argument, or making them inconsistent with the samples.


Not quite. It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence,

You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible report?
No thats why its an inference!


not an aspect of some greek tragedy.
I was employing the forensic evidence in support of my inference. Greek tragedy explored human character, which became known as characterisation yielding perrenial favorites such as Friends, We Love Lucy, Happy Days etc. They got there before Hollywood. All of which has nothing to do with describing forensic detail.



What Lin Wood said in that interview about not having seen the report characterization and any other fiber evidence is exactly the right and fair way to look at it.

He is in the business of defending JR nor practising the right and fair way.



She said Jonbenet could have put them on, she doesn't know if she did. And Jonbenet's DNA is found on the panties, from blood at

We are not talking about blood. Introducing other evidence is spurious. If JonBenet put those size-12's on then her skin cells should be in abundance on the outside of them. Patsy's skin cells should also be on the size-12's exterior. Naturally since he played no part in redressing JonBenet the night before, JR's skin cells and prior fibers should not appear anywhere on the size-12's. We have not been given this information or assurance by the DA.



Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.

Precisely, nobody. Now that and your latter claim regarding the 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA is a textbook definition of something being inconsistent!

If its IDI then you expect the Ramsey claims to be consistent with the forensic evidence, currently this is not the case.



.

Smelly Squirrel
08-19-2011, 07:32 PM
Hey, UKGuy.


Smelly Squirrel,

Well your suspicion may be entirely incorrect, since JR is not in jail, having remarried recently, and of course you do not know if there was any JR dna on the underwear or longjohns. The negative position has never been claimed by the DA or Team Ramsey. Curious that!

No more curious than that the positive claim hasn't been claimed by LE. If they had that JR DNA, if they had matching shirt fibers in the crotch, I would find it very persuasive sitting on a jury. The DA/LE would know it would be great evidence too if they had it. That's why I doubt they have that. Let's not invent what we don't have any proven knowledge of.



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber%20Evidence#DarkFibersinGenitalArea

I assumed you were referring to official reports not individual assertions.

Why? Your claims about the fibers aren't based on official reports. Nobody has those, and no official statement or news report has been made either, that's a reason I have doubts about those claims as well.


Fibers can be matched using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Polarized Light Microscopy http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/polarized-light-microscopy

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/fibers

It can match to a single, specific source? I don't see where it says that in there.


Normally finding lets say, Levi Strauss fibers, at a crime scene are helpful if you have a suspect who wears similar jeans, but in court this trace evidence may not command much relevance as other people may be produced who wear similar mass marketed jeans. If those black fibers originate from an Iraeli manufactured cotton shirt, and unless you can magic up someone else locally wearing a similar Israeli made shirt, then the fiber evidence will link JR to the crime-scene.

You keep assuming there is something unusual about those shirt fibers. You don't know that. Maybe there is, but prove it first.


Your claim about only consistency being available is the inverse of the touch dna evidence where we have a dna profile but no match. Here we have a potential match and an identity which increases the balance of probability argument very close to 1.

We don't even know if we have the match for sure, I've explained my doubts already on that. If there is such a match in that location, I do agree it's good evidence against JR, barring anything exculpatory. Show me the evidence first though.


As an aside consider the The Nebra Sky Disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Disc which people claim is wholly european in origin and incorporates astronomical information which predates the building of the Egyptian pyramids. Now those that disagree suggest it was manufactered in the near east and traded to europeans, or was even a forgery. All suggesting that ancient europeans, as long known, were stupid, savage and uncivilized. Now the copper in the bronze disk could come from anywhere, it might be consistent with multiple sources, but X-ray fluorescence determined that the copper was mined at Bischofshofen in Austria.

And this has what to do with shirt fibers exactly?


Who said anything about rarity or commonality. I was referring to any method for rejecting JR as a source for the fibers e.g. you must have a list of alternative sources. Thus decreasing the balance of probability argument, or making them inconsistent with the samples.

You said, "John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt." I'll give my point another way: if the alleged fibers found are also matched to many other types of shirts, then it's not as strong of evidence that it must have come from JR's shirt. You keep saying "Israeli" as though any fiber from the shirt is wholly unique and couldn't be found in any other shirt. Again, you don't know that.



You've seen the forensic reports then? Or a credible reportNo thats why its an inference!

You said, "It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence," . (First, an inference is not direct. Deductions are.) So, do you have the forensic evidence or not?


I was employing the forensic evidence in support of my inference. Greek tragedy explored human character, which became known as characterisation yielding perrenial favorites such as Friends, We Love Lucy, Happy Days etc. They got there before Hollywood. All of which has nothing to do with describing forensic detail.

OK, I see.


He is in the business of defending JR nor practising the right and fair way.

Doesn't mean nothing he says is accurate.


We are not talking about blood.

You said "HER skin cells/DNA" and weren't clear you meant only skin cells DNA. And that's why I said, "from blood at least."


Introducing other evidence is spurious.

*eyeroll*


If JonBenet put those size-12's on then her skin cells should be in abundance on the outside of them.

Your point? IDI doesn't say she must have.


Patsy's skin cells should also be on the size-12's exterior.

If JBR put them on, PR's skin should be on there? I don't follow.


Naturally since he played no part in redressing JonBenet the night before,

If you believe their accounts, yes. I didn't know you found them so believable. (Not saying I doubt the account.)


JR's skin cells and prior fibers should [b]not appear anywhere on the size-12's.

There could be an explanation for it,* but, yes I would agree on the unlikelihood.

*For example, on the inside of the underwear, there could be fibers from whatever fibers might be on her already.


We have not been given this information or assurance by the DA.

You're trying to make absence of report equal absence of evidence.




Patsy claims to have put the longhohns on her- then why aren't HER skin cells/DNA there? Who says they're not? But not every touch results in a transfer of detectable DNA anyway. Which is one reason why I find the evidence of 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA very significant.Precisely, nobody. Now that and your latter claim regarding the 3 different sites of matching unknown DNA is a textbook definition of something being inconsistent!

If its IDI then you expect the Ramsey claims to be consistent with the forensic evidence, currently this is not the case.

I'm not following the inconsistency. What forensic evidence is inconsistent with what claims?

UKGuy
08-20-2011, 02:53 PM
Hey, UKGuy.



No more curious than that the positive claim hasn't been claimed by LE. If they had that JR DNA, if they had matching shirt fibers in the crotch, I would find it very persuasive sitting on a jury. The DA/LE would know it would be great evidence too if they had it. That's why I doubt they have that. Let's not invent what we don't have any proven knowledge of.



Why? Your claims about the fibers aren't based on official reports. Nobody has those, and no official statement or news report has been made either, that's a reason I have doubts about those claims as well.



It can match to a single, specific source? I don't see where it says that in there.



You keep assuming there is something unusual about those shirt fibers. You don't know that. Maybe there is, but prove it first.



We don't even know if we have the match for sure, I've explained my doubts already on that. If there is such a match in that location, I do agree it's good evidence against JR, barring anything exculpatory. Show me the evidence first though.



And this has what to do with shirt fibers exactly?



You said, "John's Israeli manufactured shirt there is currently only one e.g. John's shirt." I'll give my point another way: if the alleged fibers found are also matched to many other types of shirts, then it's not as strong of evidence that it must have come from JR's shirt. You keep saying "Israeli" as though any fiber from the shirt is wholly unique and couldn't be found in any other shirt. Again, you don't know that.



You said, "It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence," [bbm]. (First, an inference is not direct. Deductions are.) So, do you have the forensic evidence or not?



OK, I see.



Doesn't mean nothing he says is accurate.



You said "HER skin cells/DNA" and weren't clear you meant only skin cells DNA. And that's why I said, "from blood at least."



*eyeroll*



Your point? IDI doesn't say she must have.



If JBR put them on, PR's skin should be on there? I don't follow.



If you believe their accounts, yes. I didn't know you found them so believable. (Not saying I doubt the account.)



There could be an explanation for it,* but, yes I would agree on the unlikelihood.

*For example, on the inside of the underwear, there could be fibers from whatever fibers might be on her already.



You're trying to make absence of report equal absence of evidence.



I'm not following the inconsistency. What forensic evidence is inconsistent with what claims?

Smelly Squirrel,

And this has what to do with shirt fibers exactly?
Not a lot except by analogy, with the reference to consistency.



I'm not following the inconsistency. What forensic evidence is inconsistent with what claims?
The IDI claim regarding the touch dna and the absence of evidence confirming that there is no Ramsey dna where we would expect it not to be. If you had the latter information the IDI claim would be consistent with the forensic evidence.




You said, "It is an inference led directly from the forensic evidence," . (First, an inference is not direct. Deductions are.) So, do you have the forensic evidence or not?

An inference is any valid rule that allows you reach sound conclusions. It may be inductive or deductive.


John Ramsey's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt


21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is

22 our belief based on forensic evidence that

23 there are [b]hairs that are associated, that the

24 source is the collared black shirt that you

25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

0058

1 underpants, and I wondered if you --

2 A. ********. I don't believe that.

3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to

4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --

5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to

6 disgrace --

7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I

8 think you are. That's disgusting.

So my premise for the inference was Mr. Levin's claim e.g. our belief based on forensic evidence which I would assert is not as you described Your characterization is misleading..

Later on the interview the shirt is referred to as a woolen shirt, and if it is Israeli manufactured then technologically matching a sample to it does not appear to be particularly problematic.


.

DeeDee249
08-20-2011, 03:14 PM
Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested. Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.
Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"? Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.
Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.
Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

UKGuy
08-20-2011, 03:24 PM
Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested. Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.
Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"? Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.
Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.
Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

DeeDee249,
Yes JR's response speaks for itself.



Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.
Of course they talked, wonder what a big bit molested would look like? Similarly with Pam, when she was asked to do her supermarket run on the R's house. Would she not eventually ask why, and was JonBenet molested etc? Guess what, she and the rest of them know the truth, but have elected for silence.


.

SuperDave
08-21-2011, 01:14 PM
First, it's, if it is their fibers. "Consist with" does not necessarily equal "same source." Second, if it is their fibers, secondary transfer is a possibility. Third, we don't know all the fiber evidence, even if what we think we know is true.

You're forgetting one crucial thing, Smelly Squirrel: Patsy digging herself deeper. She couldn't give an explanation in 2000. TWO FULL YEARS later she gave an explanation to a news reporter, but her story ("I had my whole body on her body") is in conflict with John's own writings in DOI, about how he had covered JB's body. Wendy Murphy, the former prosecutor has stated that in order for Patsy's story to work, it would require "flat-out magic."


I would agree if his matching shirt fibers were in the panties, he needs to explain it.

Which he has not.


But that's a big if. As I just said in another thread, the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted yet leads me to believe the fiber evidence isn't that strong.

Don't fool yourself, Smelly Squirrel. I've only said this a million times: the Rs weren't prosecuted because no one could ever be sure which one of them did what. It's called "Cross fingerpointing," the same thing Casey Anthony's attorney did to George. The only way to break such a stalemate is to get one suspect to confess. And believe you me, I'm going to be talking about THAT!

SuperDave
08-21-2011, 01:30 PM
If the fibers were matched to his shirt, that doesn't tell us how rare the fibers are. Being made in Israel doesn't necessarily make a fiber rare.

It's not just that, Smelly Squirrel. Fiber comparison isn't merely side-by-side under a microscope, although that is part of it. It's actually possible now to trace garments back to where they were made, and, with luck, find out what stores they were shipped to, and, with even MORE luck, find out who bought them.


So you've seen the full fiber evidence collected? Please share.

That's not what I said. THIS is what I said: the Ramseys have always claimed that they did not have any cord or duct tape in the house, thus, the intruder must have brought them with him. As such, the idea of an innocent secondary transfer is shaky, at best. But what completely blows it out of the water is Patsy's attempt to explain why her fibers were found on those items: throwing herself on JB's body. Problem is, as DOI and the police reports we know of have pointed out, she never actually TOUCHED JB.


I didn't see it, but if I were told something that implied I raped and murdered my daughter, I'd be upset too.

I don't know, Squirrel. To me, it seems like a case of "a hit dog barks."

SuperDave
08-21-2011, 01:33 PM
He is in the business of defending JR nor practising the right and fair way.

I was going to say, UKGuy, Lin Wood doesn't have a right or fair bone in his whole f***ing body! He's a liar, a hypocrite, a blackguard and a foul stench in the nostrils of honest people.

SuperDave
08-21-2011, 01:37 PM
Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested. Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.
Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"? Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.
Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.
Another thing- if the Rs claim not to have read the autopsy report, how did Nedra know she was a "little bit molested"? This was discussed between the Rs and Nedra, believe me.

A hit dog barks, DD.

vlpate
08-21-2011, 07:20 PM
UK GUY We are not talking about blood. Introducing other evidence is spurious. If JonBenet put those size-12's on then her skin cells should be in abundance on the outside of them. Patsy's skin cells should also be on the size-12's exterior. Naturally since he played no part in redressing JonBenet the night before, JR's skin cells and prior fibers should not appear anywhere on the size-12's. We have not been given this information or assurance by the DA.

John claims he carried JonBenet upstairs....his cells would have to be on her shirt. Did they test the shirt? I think I read the test was pretty specific.

Neither Patsy, nor John, mention taking a coat and gloves off JBR. Usually at big parties like the one the White's had, coats and gloves are kept in a room somewhere, piled on a bed, sometimes hung in a closet. All those coats and gloves with skin cells transferring and re-transferring over and over as people pick their coats up. Then there's Christmas shopping, people in those same coats and gloves, rubbing against one another, touching doors and toys, etc.,. I would imagine the touch DNA could have come from just about anywhere, especially if transferred.

Only if it matches someone, someday, does it mean anything - I just can't wrap my head around it clearing the Ramseys.

UKGuy
08-21-2011, 08:56 PM
John claims he carried JonBenet upstairs....his cells would have to be on her shirt. Did they test the shirt? I think I read the test was pretty specific.

Neither Patsy, nor John, mention taking a coat and gloves off JBR. Usually at big parties like the one the White's had, coats and gloves are kept in a room somewhere, piled on a bed, sometimes hung in a closet. All those coats and gloves with skin cells transferring and re-transferring over and over as people pick their coats up. Then there's Christmas shopping, people in those same coats and gloves, rubbing against one another, touching doors and toys, etc.,. I would imagine the touch DNA could have come from just about anywhere, especially if transferred.

Only if it matches someone, someday, does it mean anything - I just can't wrap my head around it clearing the Ramseys.

vlpate,


Only if it matches someone, someday, does it mean anything - I just can't wrap my head around it clearing the Ramseys.
mmm, how about a nice fat cheque/check, could you wrap your head around that?


.

vlpate
08-21-2011, 09:17 PM
vlpate,

mmm, how about a nice fat cheque/check, could you wrap your head around that?


.
I guess I could if I were a retiring DA in a pi$$ ant town in Colorado.....

UKGuy
08-21-2011, 09:34 PM
I guess I could if I were a retiring DA in a pi$$ ant town in Colorado.....

vlpate,
Go directly to GO pass JAIL and collect $100,000,000!



.

DeeDee249
08-23-2011, 02:43 PM
I guess I could if I were a retiring DA in a pi$$ ant town in Colorado.....

LOVE it! You wrapped up this whole case in that one comment. AH wanted to coast till the day he retired, and this case was something he just wanted to go away. As far as I am concerned, he had already disgraced himself before he left office. The whole country saw the disgrace that was liberal soft-on-ANY-crime Boulder law enforcement. ML continued that disgraceful legacy, and frankly, I don't see much changed there with the new DA. He's made some noise, but I don't think he really intends to tackle this. As time goes by, people care less and less. (except people like us).
This case is solved, IMO. Boulder LE knows who did it, the family knows who did it, their lawyers know who did it. Maybe one day, everyone will know who did it.
Poor JB - no one who knows the truth has stepped up to be her hero.

Smelly Squirrel
09-23-2011, 10:39 PM
DeeDee,


Notice JR immediately on the defense blathering about "disgracing his relationship with his daughter", instead of reacting to the fact that his daughter had been molested.

That was 2000, long after he'd known about the molestation. He was reacting to being accused of being the molester.


Making a big diversionary fuss. Put up a stink and the line of questioning goes away. The Rs were masters of deception and diversion.

In your opinion.


Patsy pulled the same thing- when told of the molestation, she said "you tell me where it says that"?

That's not exactly what happened, the full exchange is:


25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about
21 this?
22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay
23 out of the making of the record and inserting
24 myself into the tape-recording of this
25 interview. The newspapers have talked about
0584
1 this. Whether or not--
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk
3 about a lot of things that are not true.
4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has
5 been a debate among the people who talked about
6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether
7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So
8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or
9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a
10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know
12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.
13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done
14 such a thing?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I
16 don't have any idea.
17 TOM HANEY: What is your best
18 guess?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to
20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
22 this.
23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge
24 change your answer to any question that you have
25 been asked?
0585
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have
2 answered every question you or anyone else has
3 asked me to the best of my ability.
4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or
5 would that statement, that information, would
6 that lead you in any particular direction?
7 Would you think about a particular person being
8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I
10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
12 just want to see where it says that.
13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had
14 you heard or read or seen anything about--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that
16 the night she was killed that she may have
17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not
18 prior to that. Absolutely.

So before she ever says "I would like to see where it says that and who reported that" (not "you tell me where it says that"), she has said she's shock and bothered to hear it. And she is wise to ask where it says that, because she'd probably heard lots of false reports by then and also because interrogators LIE about evidence. And in fact, Haney was lying or overstating the issue when he calls it fact.

And this was about prior molestation, she had already heard she'd been molested the night of.


Instead of a mother's horror, she also tries to blow it up into a "how dare you say such a thing" ruse.

Perhaps if you had concrete evidence against the Ramseys, you wouldn't have to manufacture it by egregiously reading into otherwise nonprobative statements.


Nedra said "she was only a little bit molested". What a thing for a grandmother to say about a dead, abused little grandaugghter. How little is a "little bit molested". What a disgusting thing to say.

It is an odd thing to say, but it goes to anybody's guilt, how?

However, you're playing loose with a quote again. What she really said is,


“I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought. [From PMPT.]

To be fair, you're not the only RDIer to repeat that misquote, I've seen it elsewhere. I'm beginning to think I might have to start a list of the "Top ten RDI myths." :crazy:

DeeDee249
09-23-2011, 10:43 PM
DeeDee,



That was 2000, long after he'd known about the molestation. He was reacting to being accused of being the molester.



In your opinion.



That's not exactly what happened, the full exchange is:



So before she ever says "I would like to see where it says that and who reported that" (not "you tell me where it says that"), she has said she's shock and bothered to hear it. And she is wise to ask where it says that, because she'd probably heard lots of false reports by then and also because interrogators LIE about evidence. And in fact, Haney was lying or overstating the issue when he calls it fact.

And this was about prior molestation, she had already heard she'd been molested the night of.



Perhaps if you had concrete evidence against the Ramseys, you wouldn't have to manufacture it by egregiously reading into otherwise nonprobative statements.



It is an odd thing to say, but it goes to anybody's guilt, how?

However, you're playing loose with a quote again. What she really said is,



To be fair, you're not the only RDIer to repeat that misquote, I've seen it elsewhere. I'm beginning to think I might have to start a list of the "Top ten RDI myths." :crazy:

We've got quite a list of our own! I'd start with the "pubic hair" myth and the palm print myth.

Smelly Squirrel
09-23-2011, 10:54 PM
You're forgetting one crucial thing, Smelly Squirrel: Patsy digging herself deeper. She couldn't give an explanation in 2000. TWO FULL YEARS later she gave an explanation to a news reporter, but her story ("I had my whole body on her body") is in conflict with John's own writings in DOI, about how he had covered JB's body.

What is the conflict here?


Wendy Murphy, the former prosecutor has stated that in order for Patsy's story to work, it would require "flat-out magic."

Well if the great Wendy Murphy said it, ....


Don't fool yourself, Smelly Squirrel. I've only said this a million times: the Rs weren't prosecuted because no one could ever be sure which one of them did what. It's called "Cross fingerpointing," the same thing Casey Anthony's attorney did to George. The only way to break such a stalemate is to get one suspect to confess. And believe you me, I'm going to be talking about THAT!

Possible, but then if nobody can be sure who did it, maybe that's because neither really did it. (Yet, there are RDIers who are sure of one or the other's guilt.)

Smelly Squirrel
09-23-2011, 10:56 PM
We've got quite a list of our own! I'd start with the "pubic hair" myth and the palm print myth.

True, if I repeat one, I'd hope I'm corrected. Very gently,

Junebug99
09-24-2011, 10:25 AM
Dee Dee, please link where the auxiliary hair is a myth, every sight I read mentions it as a fact, except here.

Smelly Squirrel
09-24-2011, 07:05 PM
It's been posted on forums that Carol McKinley reported it was matched to Patsy.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Need your help and FAST please!!!


Can't find the original reporting though.

Junebug99
09-24-2011, 08:27 PM
That link is complete hearsay, even if they did report it, they aren't exactly known for being fair and balanced. But until I see the actual news report, I'll consider it more RDI propaganda.

Smelly Squirrel
09-24-2011, 09:09 PM
Hm, maybe. It is unusual that there are lots of news stories at that same time that mention the hand print and shoeprint but not the hair.

Google News (http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&safe=off&q=patsy+ramsey&gs_upl=12045l14010l2l14468l8l5l0l0l0l2l1777l2795l7-1.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1360&bih=500&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=acV4_w43jsddyqM&ei=pn5-Ts2qDo3yrQft89TqDw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CC8QqgIwAA)

DeeDee249
09-24-2011, 10:00 PM
Dee Dee, please link where the auxiliary hair is a myth, every sight I read mentions it as a fact, except here.

It was an ANCILLARY hair. Not an auxillary hair or axillary hair (underarm). An ancillary hair comes from the forearm and is easily distinguished from a pubic hair.

Junebug99
09-24-2011, 11:02 PM
Dee Dee, that depends on what report you read, I've seen conflicting, with the majority reporting it was an auxiliary hair.

DeeDee249
09-25-2011, 09:05 PM
Dee Dee, that depends on what report you read, I've seen conflicting, with the majority reporting it was an auxiliary hair.

"Auxiliary" is not the correct term anyway. You probably saw the word "axillary" which means underarm. Patsy would have to have not shaved her underarms for quite a while and handled the blanket while undressed for an underarm hair to have gotten on there.
But an "ancillary" hair (from the forearm) is easily shed.

Junebug99
09-25-2011, 09:55 PM
No dee Dee I have linked it time and time again, it was a AUXILIARY hair, and it being matched to Patsy is absolute hearsay.

From the website you rdi theorist always link to (acandyrose) even says it's auxiliary, they claim it belongs to Patsy, but I have seen no other documentation.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

UNIDENTIFIED HAIR
12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)

vlpate
09-25-2011, 10:29 PM
No dee Dee I have linked it time and time again, it was a AUXILIARY hair, and it being matched to Patsy is absolute hearsay.

From the website you rdi theorist always link to (acandyrose) even says it's auxiliary, they claim it belongs to Patsy, but I have seen no other documentation.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

UNIDENTIFIED HAIR
12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)

This was the day the murder happened. There were also reports that day of semen on her leg, which was not true. On 12/26/96, they could not have possibly known the type of hair. I'm surprised they had any evidence at all to report. Same old media sensationalism. The hair was not a pubic hair - and it did belong to Patsy Ramsey. Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his "saliva in the blood" bull. The shoe print, the palm print, and the ancillary hair have all been identified - that's why all that's left is the sketchy DNA.

Smelly Squirrel
09-26-2011, 05:58 AM
This was the day the murder happened. There were also reports that day of semen on her leg, which was not true. On 12/26/96, they could not have possibly known the type of hair.

The alleged Fox News report was from 2002.


The hair was not a pubic hair - and it did belong to Patsy Ramsey. Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his "saliva in the blood" bull.

Wood refer to the "pubic" hair in the Wolf suit and the Fox News suit.

UKGuy
09-26-2011, 09:01 AM
The alleged Fox News report was from 2002.



Wood refer to the "pubic" hair in the Wolf suit and the Fox News suit.

Smelly Squirrel,
For all we know, you might be posting on behalf of Wood. He is not an unbiased observer.

Prior to a court case he can refer to anything he wants e.g. DNA as opposed to touch-dna, pubic hair as opposed to follicle.

He has an agenda, and is employed by John Ramsey to to sow the seeds of doubt, not to clarify and enlighten the general public.

DeeDee249
09-26-2011, 08:58 PM
No dee Dee I have linked it time and time again, it was a AUXILIARY hair, and it being matched to Patsy is absolute hearsay.

From the website you rdi theorist always link to (acandyrose) even says it's auxiliary, they claim it belongs to Patsy, but I have seen no other documentation.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

UNIDENTIFIED HAIR
12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)

You are correct - but it is still an error. The proper term would be "ancillary". As you see in that link- it was PROVEN to belong to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial DNA testing.

Smelly Squirrel
09-26-2011, 11:55 PM
As you see in that link- it was PROVEN to belong to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial DNA testing.

Do you have an original source for that claim?

DeeDee249
09-27-2011, 07:43 PM
Do you have an original source for that claim?

Sure. I never post sources. I never gave homework answers either.

Smelly Squirrel
09-27-2011, 09:03 PM
? There is a question about the Fox News report. Do you have the original report?

vlpate
09-28-2011, 01:11 AM
You are correct - but it is still an error. The proper term would be "ancillary". As you see in that link- it was PROVEN to belong to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial DNA testing.

You are correct, Candy simply made a typo.

vlpate
09-28-2011, 01:13 AM
? There is a question about the Fox News report. Do you have the original report?

Do you have google? You could probably find it that way...??

vlpate
09-28-2011, 01:14 AM
Smelly Squirrel,
For all we know, you might be posting on behalf of Wood. He is not an unbiased observer.

Prior to a court case he can refer to anything he wants e.g. DNA as opposed to touch-dna, pubic hair as opposed to follicle.

He has an agenda, and is employed by John Ramsey to to sow the seeds of doubt, not to clarify and enlighten the general public.
"Saliva in blood" .... this was from Lin Wood in a Topix chat. Whether or not it originated with him, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

vlpate
09-28-2011, 01:17 AM
The alleged Fox News report was from 2002.



Wood refer to the "pubic" hair in the Wolf suit and the Fox News suit.

I was actually answering Junebug who posted in the body of her comment "12/26/96. I didn't read the link, just her quote.

If Lin Wood said it, it must be so. Not.

UKGuy
09-28-2011, 04:36 AM
"Saliva in blood" .... this was from Lin Wood in a Topix chat. Whether or not it originated with him, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

vlpate,
It would not be him, likely one of his bag carriers, since LW would be shot down in court if he could not substantiate this claim forensically. His claims about John Ramsey's fibers would also be in doubt and open to objection if he was posting unsubstantiated claims on topix!

there are no known DNA test results stating that either saliva or semen DNA was found at the crime-scene.

This along with the unidentified crime-scene artifacts are all part of the smoke and mirrors agenda, all promoted to sow doubt in the minds of readers.

I was watching the Conrad Murray trial yesterday and noticed his attorney pursue the same strategy when he had Kenny Ortega testify Michael Jackson was absent for specific rehearsals, yet Kenny Ortega could not place a date or location on certain rehearsals, nor why Michael Jackson was absent e.g. seeds of doubt sown early on?

Smelly Squirrel
09-28-2011, 02:08 PM
Do you have google? You could probably find it that way...??

Yeah, I already said that I've looked, or I wouldn't have asked. acandyrose cited message board posts that claimed they saw it reported on TV. But I can't find a Fox News article or any other news sources who has mentioned this since, even though others do mention the palm print and shoe print matches.

Smelly Squirrel
09-28-2011, 02:09 PM
I was actually answering Junebug who posted in the body of her comment "12/26/96. I didn't read the link, just her quote.

Yeah, you missed the 2002 in her quote.


If Lin Wood said it, it must be so. Not.

I see, so you're backtracking from, "Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his 'saliva in the blood' bull."

Junebug99
09-28-2011, 06:32 PM
You are correct, Candy simply made a typo.

Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

vlpate
09-28-2011, 10:46 PM
Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

Put this in a google search:
jonbenet + ancillary hair

If the Chinese source is what you deem credible, then you probably will not think any of the news and book sources you find by doing said google search, credible.

Auxillary hair.... you are mistaken, there are no sources for this except a typo by ACR.

vlpate
09-28-2011, 11:01 PM
Yeah, you missed the 2002 in her quote.



I see, so you're backtracking from, "Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his 'saliva in the blood' bull."

If that's how you see it, then you are seeing it - it has been seen as you see it, see?

vlpate
09-28-2011, 11:30 PM
vlpate,
It would not be him, likely one of his bag carriers, since LW would be shot down in court if he could not substantiate this claim forensically. His claims about John Ramsey's fibers would also be in doubt and open to objection if he was posting unsubstantiated claims on topix!

there are no known DNA test results stating that either saliva or semen DNA was found at the crime-scene.

This along with the unidentified crime-scene artifacts are all part of the smoke and mirrors agenda, all promoted to sow doubt in the minds of readers.

I was watching the Conrad Murray trial yesterday and noticed his attorney pursue the same strategy when he had Kenny Ortega testify Michael Jackson was absent for specific rehearsals, yet Kenny Ortega could not place a date or location on certain rehearsals, nor why Michael Jackson was absent e.g. seeds of doubt sown early on?

You are probably right about the CM trial. I haven't been watching it or any coverage of it. IMO, MJ was a pedophile who paid for his victim's silence - just as he was a drug addict who paid for his physician's cooperation. This case is only unique because MJ is the dead guy - the practice is all too common by physicians. Like Nixon, CM just got caught.

But, I digress - I know what you mean about all the smoke and mirrors - trying to research a fact in this case is like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack. The first 300 or so results are opinion blogs, propagandists, and tons of "experts", who have read those first 300 results, writing books LOL. It really is disheartening. The propagandists are easy to recognize, especially on the forums - same old rubbish, over and over and over and over and over again. Hell, I've been second guessing myself on facts that haven't changed in 14 years because I keep reading the same bull over and over again when researching.

learnin
09-29-2011, 11:52 AM
Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

I just happened to be leafing through ST's book last night and came across his discussion of the hairs. He called this particular hair an "ancillary hair" which could have come from an arm, leg, etc.

"Auxillary" hair has come about, evidently, by someone, somewhere, confusing and mispelling the term.

BOESP
09-29-2011, 02:03 PM
Apparently a lot of others did to, I have yet to find a credible source call it ancillary. Every thing I found says it's a unmatched auxiliary hair. I would ask for a legitimate source, but I know it won't happen. They are scarce around these parts.......

There is no such thing as an auxilary hair.

Junebug99
09-29-2011, 02:10 PM
There is no such thing as an auxilary hair.

You sure about that? This is not related to JBR, but it does discuss auxilary hair and puberty.

http://wcwpds.wisc.edu/childdevelopment/resources/TeenplusDetails.pdf

Junebug99
09-29-2011, 02:12 PM
You can even have it transplanted.



http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/auxiliary-hair-transplant-269.htm

Junebug99
09-29-2011, 02:17 PM
The following is a further explanation of our position on auxiliary hair transplantation. We have been asked about it for several years and it was discussed in our Feb 2003 New York Seminar

The groin/pubic perineal, and armpit are crease areas where the skin reflects upon itself. These are the skin “wet zones”. It needs to be this way otherwise dry skin would constantly rub against dry skin causing severe discomfort, abrasion, rash, and infection. In these “wet zones”, nature has devised a complex system of unique and specialized glands attached to the follicular units. Secretions lubricate and protect the skin, but the full function of the apocrine gland system to this day is not fully understood. In hot weather and exercise etc. moisture would accumulate and, because air circulation and drainage is limited in these “crease” areas there would be “water logging” of the skin.

Someone needs to tell these guys..........

Junebug99
09-29-2011, 02:20 PM
Heck, this guy makes a living off of auxiliary hair!


http://www.yellowpages.ca/bus/New-Brunswick/Fredericton/D-E-C-H-Auxiliary-Hair-Care-Centre/7042631.html

Whaleshark
09-29-2011, 05:18 PM
Please take note of both links below - SAME Doctors - different version of same procedure/same website.....they covered both bases no matter how people spelled it:

Axillary Hair Transplant
http://www.hairsite2.com/library2/article271.htm

Auxiliary Hair Transplant
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/auxiliary-hair-transplant-269.htm

In other words - axillary hair transplant IS auxiliary hair transplant.

Axillary Hair - Definition:
Underarm hair (Sometimes called axillary hair or armpit hair) is the composition of hair in the underarm area (axilla).

Online medical dicitionary:
http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?axillary+hair
An axillary hair is hair of the armpit.

There is no match for 'auxiliary hair' in the same dictionary.
__


Ancillary Hair -

ADOLESCENCE: BioSocial Development
http://www3.niu.edu/acad/fcns280/a-bio.html

Males

Growth of testes is first physical sign
Growth of penis and accessory (internal) male organs--allows for ejaculation
Sperm production becomes fully established
Genitalia reach adult size at age 15 on average
Nocturnal emissions ("wet dreams") occur between 14-17-- similar to menstruation
Deepening of the voice
Growth of larynx; around 13.5 yrs
Growth of pubic hair
Begins about same time as genital development and is followed by facial and Ancillary hair within 1-2 years
Ancillary hair is most socially visible signs of becoming a man
__

Definition of Auxiliary -

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=auxiliary&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Vt6ETpvALPKGsAKWueyqDw&ved=0CCYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=298cfbc9b6f1239a&biw=984&bih=487

noun /ôgˈzilyərē/  /-ˈzil(ə)rē/ 
auxiliaries, plural

1.A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support
- a nursing auxiliary
- there are two main fuel tanks and two auxiliaries
2.A group of volunteers giving supplementary support to an organization or institution
- members of the Volunteer Fire Department's women's auxiliary
3.Troops engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army, and often of foreign origin
4.An auxiliary verb
5.A naval vessel with a supporting role, not armed for combat

adjective /ôgˈzilyərē/  /-ˈzil(ə)rē/ 
1.Providing supplementary or additional help and support
- an auxiliary nurse
- auxiliary airport staff
2.(of equipment) Held in reserve
- the ship has an auxiliary power source
3.(of troops) Engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army, and often of foreign origin
4.(of a sailing vessel) Equipped with a supplementary engine

Aiding; ancillary; subordinate; subsidiary.
www.novelguide.com/a/discover/weal_13/weal_13_04928.html

Of note above - Auxiliary is ANOTHER word/Interchangeable with ancillary.

However, the axillary hair is called such because it is located in the underarm area - the AXILLA.
__

Can we move on now please?

DeeDee249
09-29-2011, 08:59 PM
A rose by any other name....

Besides the point, really. Whatever you like to call it, it was sourced to Patsy Ramsey.

Smelly Squirrel
09-29-2011, 09:41 PM
According to who, DeeDee?

SuperDave
09-29-2011, 10:35 PM
In your opinion.

Mine, too.


So before she ever says "I would like to see where it says that and who reported that" (not "you tell me where it says that"), she has said she's shock and bothered to hear it.

She was awfully calm for someone who was "shocked" and "bothered." She did what she always did: she tried to redirect it.


Perhaps if you had concrete evidence against the Ramseys, you wouldn't have to manufacture it by egregiously reading into otherwise nonprobative statements.

"Manufacture it," my fat Irish a**! Patsy pretty much gave the store away with that interview. Not JUST in regard to the molestation, either.


To be fair, you're not the only RDIer to repeat that misquote, I've seen it elsewhere. I'm beginning to think I might have to start a list of the "Top ten RDI myths." :crazy:

You do that, Squirrel. You may find them not so mythical after all.

(I've got a REAL smart-ass remark about legends, but only if someone asks!)

SuperDave
09-29-2011, 10:45 PM
That link is complete hearsay, even if they did report it, they aren't exactly known for being fair and balanced. But until I see the actual news report, I'll consider it more RDI propaganda.

Sadly, JuneBug, I FIGURED that's what your answer would be! I know how IDI operates.

When all else fails, bash FOX News. Heard it all before. (Is there a smiley for yawning?)

The actual report, eh? If memory serves, it was originally reported by Charlie Brennan, in the Rocky Mountain News (I THINK--either that, or Boulder Daily Camera) on August 25, 2002.

SuperDave
09-29-2011, 10:52 PM
Yeah, you missed the 2002 in her quote.



I see, so you're backtracking from, "Trust me, if it did not belong to Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood would be shouting it from the rooftops with his 'saliva in the blood' bull."

Makes no difference to me! I wouldn't trust Lin Wood to tell me that dogs bark and cats meow!

Smelly Squirrel
09-30-2011, 01:32 AM
Sadly, JuneBug, I FIGURED that's what your answer would be! I know how IDI operates.

When all else fails, bash FOX News. Heard it all before. (Is there a smiley for yawning?)

The actual report, eh? If memory serves, it was originally reported by Charlie Brennan, in the Rocky Mountain News (I THINK--either that, or Boulder Daily Camera) on August 25, 2002.

No, Brennan only mentions the palm and shoe prints, just like every other news story at the time. None mention the hair. Unless you got a link or copy.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-90790059.html
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

UKGuy
09-30-2011, 04:16 AM
Please take note of both links below - SAME Doctors - different version of same procedure/same website.....they covered both bases no matter how people spelled it:

Axillary Hair Transplant
http://www.hairsite2.com/library2/article271.htm

Auxiliary Hair Transplant
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/auxiliary-hair-transplant-269.htm

In other words - axillary hair transplant IS auxiliary hair transplant.

Axillary Hair - Definition:
Underarm hair (Sometimes called axillary hair or armpit hair) is the composition of hair in the underarm area (axilla).

Online medical dicitionary:
http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?axillary+hair
An axillary hair is hair of the armpit.

There is no match for 'auxiliary hair' in the same dictionary.
__


Ancillary Hair -

ADOLESCENCE: BioSocial Development
http://www3.niu.edu/acad/fcns280/a-bio.html

Males

Growth of testes is first physical sign
Growth of penis and accessory (internal) male organs--allows for ejaculation
Sperm production becomes fully established
Genitalia reach adult size at age 15 on average
Nocturnal emissions ("wet dreams") occur between 14-17-- similar to menstruation
Deepening of the voice
Growth of larynx; around 13.5 yrs
Growth of pubic hair
Begins about same time as genital development and is followed by facial and Ancillary hair within 1-2 years
Ancillary hair is most socially visible signs of becoming a man
__

Definition of Auxiliary -

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=auxiliary&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Vt6ETpvALPKGsAKWueyqDw&ved=0CCYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=298cfbc9b6f1239a&biw=984&bih=487

noun /ôgˈzilyərē/  /-ˈzil(ə)rē/ 
auxiliaries, plural

1.A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support
- a nursing auxiliary
- there are two main fuel tanks and two auxiliaries
2.A group of volunteers giving supplementary support to an organization or institution
- members of the Volunteer Fire Department's women's auxiliary
3.Troops engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army, and often of foreign origin
4.An auxiliary verb
5.A naval vessel with a supporting role, not armed for combat

adjective /ôgˈzilyərē/  /-ˈzil(ə)rē/ 
1.Providing supplementary or additional help and support
- an auxiliary nurse
- auxiliary airport staff
2.(of equipment) Held in reserve
- the ship has an auxiliary power source
3.(of troops) Engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army, and often of foreign origin
4.(of a sailing vessel) Equipped with a supplementary engine

Aiding; ancillary; subordinate; subsidiary.
www.novelguide.com/a/discover/weal_13/weal_13_04928.html

Of note above - Auxiliary is ANOTHER word/Interchangeable with ancillary.

However, the axillary hair is called such because it is located in the underarm area - the AXILLA.
__

Can we move on now please?

Whaleshark,
Excellent post. Demonstrates that those posting the smoke and mirror posts do not even bother doing their own research, thereby wasting our time.


.

vlpate
09-30-2011, 08:57 AM
Please take note of both links below - SAME Doctors - different version of same procedure/same website.....they covered both bases no matter how people spelled it:

Axillary Hair Transplant
http://www.hairsite2.com/library2/article271.htm

Auxiliary Hair Transplant
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/auxiliary-hair-transplant-269.htm

In other words - axillary hair transplant IS auxiliary hair transplant.

Axillary Hair - Definition:
Underarm hair (Sometimes called axillary hair or armpit hair) is the composition of hair in the underarm area (axilla).

Online medical dicitionary:
http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?axillary+hair
An axillary hair is hair of the armpit.

There is no match for 'auxiliary hair' in the same dictionary.
__


Ancillary Hair -

ADOLESCENCE: BioSocial Development
http://www3.niu.edu/acad/fcns280/a-bio.html

Males

Growth of testes is first physical sign
Growth of penis and accessory (internal) male organs--allows for ejaculation
Sperm production becomes fully established
Genitalia reach adult size at age 15 on average
Nocturnal emissions ("wet dreams") occur between 14-17-- similar to menstruation
Deepening of the voice
Growth of larynx; around 13.5 yrs
Growth of pubic hair
Begins about same time as genital development and is followed by facial and Ancillary hair within 1-2 years
Ancillary hair is most socially visible signs of becoming a man
__

Definition of Auxiliary -

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=auxiliary&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Vt6ETpvALPKGsAKWueyqDw&ved=0CCYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=298cfbc9b6f1239a&biw=984&bih=487

noun /ôgˈzilyərē/  /-ˈzil(ə)rē/ 
auxiliaries, plural

1.A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support
- a nursing auxiliary
- there are two main fuel tanks and two auxiliaries
2.A group of volunteers giving supplementary support to an organization or institution
- members of the Volunteer Fire Department's women's auxiliary
3.Troops engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army, and often of foreign origin
4.An auxiliary verb
5.A naval vessel with a supporting role, not armed for combat

adjective /ôgˈzilyərē/  /-ˈzil(ə)rē/ 
1.Providing supplementary or additional help and support
- an auxiliary nurse
- auxiliary airport staff
2.(of equipment) Held in reserve
- the ship has an auxiliary power source
3.(of troops) Engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army, and often of foreign origin
4.(of a sailing vessel) Equipped with a supplementary engine

Aiding; ancillary; subordinate; subsidiary.
www.novelguide.com/a/discover/weal_13/weal_13_04928.html

Of note above - Auxiliary is ANOTHER word/Interchangeable with ancillary.

However, the axillary hair is called such because it is located in the underarm area - the AXILLA.
__

Can we move on now please?

You obviously don't know me lol I'm going to take one last whack at this poor, dead horse....
BEM

Auxiliary is another word for ancillary. But auxiliary hair and ancillary hair are not the same by definition. Auxiliary hair, in the case of a hair transplant, head, underarm, groin, or otherwise, is supplemental hair. Unless the "intruder" had undergone hair transplant surgery or extensions, this term is wrong when it comes to the hair found on JonBenet's blanket. The term could just as easily be "supplemental" hair.

auxiliary and ancillary
ancillary:
Of secondary importance
auxiliary:
Giving assistance or support or helping
Acting as a subsidiary; supplementary to
Held in or used as a reserve

http://www.google.com/patents/about/10_177_584_Supplemental_hair_attachment.html?id=_c qFAAAAEBAJ

Supplemental hair attachment method and apparatus Darla J. Smith
The present invention provides an article and method for supplementing scalp hair. The article includes a body having at least one aperture formed therethrough and a plurality of fibers. Each fiber is threaded through an aperture and around the body. Scalp hair is threaded through a body aperture and body position adjacent the scalp. Crimping of the body secures the article to the scalp hair.

UKGuy
09-30-2011, 11:43 AM
You obviously don't know me lol I'm going to take one last whack at this poor, dead horse....
BEM

Auxiliary is another word for ancillary. But auxiliary hair and ancillary hair are not the same by definition. Auxiliary hair, in the case of a hair transplant, head, underarm, groin, or otherwise, is supplemental hair. Unless the "intruder" had undergone hair transplant surgery or extensions, this term is wrong when it comes to the hair found on JonBenet's blanket. The term could just as easily be "supplemental" hair.

auxiliary and ancillary
ancillary:
Of secondary importance
auxiliary:
Giving assistance or support or helping
Acting as a subsidiary; supplementary to
Held in or used as a reserve

http://www.google.com/patents/about/10_177_584_Supplemental_hair_attachment.html?id=_c qFAAAAEBAJ

Supplemental hair attachment method and apparatus Darla J. Smith
The present invention provides an article and method for supplementing scalp hair. The article includes a body having at least one aperture formed therethrough and a plurality of fibers. Each fiber is threaded through an aperture and around the body. Scalp hair is threaded through a body aperture and body position adjacent the scalp. Crimping of the body secures the article to the scalp hair.

vlpate,
Over here in the UK these two words have similar meanings, and can be found in similar contexts. However, their meanings are distinct. So is their spelling. The first ancillary has two '-l-s'. The second, auxiliary, has only one.

ancillary (with two ‘-l-’s) is derived from the Latin word for a maidservant - ancilla. So it is used in the sense ‘supporting’ or ‘not important’, or ‘secondary’.

auxiliary (with one ‘-l-’) derives from the Latin word for ‘help’ or ‘assistance’ - auxilium.

So ancillary has connotations of rank or physical distance whereas auxiliary has connotations of short physical distance where the help is additional.


So it does appear someone assumed axillary was auxiliary and due to it being interchangable with ancillary somone else described it so.

I'd vote for Whaleshark here and go for axillary.

vlpate
09-30-2011, 07:48 PM
vlpate,
Over here in the UK these two words have similar meanings, and can be found in similar contexts. However, their meanings are distinct. So is their spelling. The first ancillary has two '-l-s'. The second, auxiliary, has only one.

ancillary (with two ‘-l-’s) is derived from the Latin word for a maidservant - ancilla. So it is used in the sense ‘supporting’ or ‘not important’, or ‘secondary’.

auxiliary (with one ‘-l-’) derives from the Latin word for ‘help’ or ‘assistance’ - auxilium.

So ancillary has connotations of rank or physical distance whereas auxiliary has connotations of short physical distance where the help is additional.


So it does appear someone assumed axillary was auxiliary and due to it being interchangable with ancillary somone else described it so.

I'd vote for Whaleshark here and go for axillary.

We're not in a contest....the "pubic" hair was described by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation crime lab as an "ancillary" hair - "arm or chest hair", their exact word, not mine. It's not about what anyone thinks, it's about following what was actually said by officials so the ancillary hair doesn't turn into something it is not, like so much does in this case if repeated enough times.

DeeDee249
09-30-2011, 08:45 PM
vlpate,
Over here in the UK these two words have similar meanings, and can be found in similar contexts. However, their meanings are distinct. So is their spelling. The first ancillary has two '-l-s'. The second, auxiliary, has only one.

ancillary (with two ‘-l-’s) is derived from the Latin word for a maidservant - ancilla. So it is used in the sense ‘supporting’ or ‘not important’, or ‘secondary’.

auxiliary (with one ‘-l-’) derives from the Latin word for ‘help’ or ‘assistance’ - auxilium.

So ancillary has connotations of rank or physical distance whereas auxiliary has connotations of short physical distance where the help is additional.


So it does appear someone assumed axillary was auxiliary and due to it being interchangable with ancillary somone else described it so.

I'd vote for Whaleshark here and go for axillary.

Nope. Axcillary means UNDERARM (axcilla)

Whaleshark
09-30-2011, 09:17 PM
so, no i guess we can't move on....? LOL :)

Whaleshark
09-30-2011, 09:22 PM
maybe it was an anxcilliaury hair ;)

but seriously though - it was patsy's hair right? was it patsy's hair or not?

so whether it came from under her arm, on her forearm, or was a pube, if it was her hair, it was her hair. right? amiright?

someone will inevitably say i'm not. my ancillary hair hurts now.

vlpate
09-30-2011, 09:54 PM
maybe it was an anxcilliaury hair ;)

but seriously though - it was patsy's hair right? was it patsy's hair or not?

so whether it came from under her arm, on her forearm, or was a pube, if it was her hair, it was her hair. right? amiright?

someone will inevitably say i'm not. my ancillary hair hurts now.

You're right!! :woohoo:

vlpate
10-01-2011, 01:35 AM
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a

The above article is interesting in that it speaks to transfer DNA... The handshake scenario, totally scary...

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/using-dna-solve-cold-cases
"One word of caution regarding fingernail clippings, especially from cold cases: the contamination quality control procedures that are in place at the medical examiner's office today may not have been followed at the time the crime occurred. How could this affect your case? As an example, a former colleague of mine was working on a cold case and was able to get a male DNA profile from the female victim's fingernail clippings. The male profile was uploaded into CODIS and within days she had the name of the male who left his DNA under the victim's nails. The only problem? This particular male individual was deceased--and had been since 2 days prior to the victims own death! It was later determined the technicians at the medical examiner's office had used the same pair of fingernail clippers on both individuals, thus leading to the mixture of DNA. This example serves to highlight the care that is needed to avoid cross-contamination of samples. This is especially true when dealing with decades-old cold cases. After all, who would have thought 20 years ago that one would need to be concerned with simply touching an item of evidence and leaving their DNA behind?"

This murder happened 14 years ago....how carefully was the evidence handled? No one, at that time, would have been overly concerned with "touch" DNA once the long johns and underwear were tested for blood, saliva, semen DNA. They'd probably never heard of it. I'd like to know the chain of custody for the underwear and long johns...

The only way anyone is ever going to challenge this and the blood DNA is in a court of law, and that's probably never going to happen - and the ex Boulder DA knew it...IMO.

Junebug99
10-01-2011, 07:17 AM
The DNA on the side of the long johns, exactly where someone would have pulled them down is what makes me go hmmmmmm. According tp PR she put the long johns on her that night, I am assuming they were clean so they shouldn't have any DNA, especially a strangers.

UKGuy
10-01-2011, 09:36 AM
We're not in a contest....the "pubic" hair was described by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation crime lab as an "ancillary" hair - "arm or chest hair", their exact word, not mine. It's not about what anyone thinks, it's about following what was actually said by officials so the ancillary hair doesn't turn into something it is not, like so much does in this case if repeated enough times.

vlpate,

Fine, if thats what was said, OK.


.