Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey

New Posts

bettybaby00 said:
bbm

yes.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. I think you're confusing the profile submitted to CODIS in 2003 with the matching DNA obtained from the long johns in 2008.

You asked:
"Does not matter. That's my understanding. Cynic was very specific. It's still considered a mixed sample. The "isolated" tDNA had to be coaxed/amplified (idk the correct term) to get to the required # of markers. Yes?"​

The answer is no.
 
bettybaby00 said:
Does not matter. That's my understanding. Cynic was very specific. It's still considered a mixed sample. The "isolated" tDNA had to be coaxed/amplified (idk the correct term) to get to the required # of markers.

Yes?
Click to expand...

What is it that you are saying does not matter?

The tDNA was not a mixed sample. If it is, no one who would know has ever said so.

Or, are you saying that the tDNA is considered a mixed sample even if it was not mixed? Why would anyone even think such a thing?

As for being amplified: it’s hard to tell exactly what you mean, but DNA is always amplified (PCR!), they take a wee little bit and they make a whole whack of copies. That’s normal. They do with this with all samples.

It isn’t clear form your post, but I’m wondering if you are thinking about LCN (low copy number) which is a method used for very small samples. LCN has been affirmed, but remains controversial. And, this is something that truly does not matter because BODE claims to have processed the tDNA in the standard manner – not LCN.
...

AK
 
Linda7NJ said:
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.

In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1

The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)

...

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Click to expand...
Per Kolar, the results cited above were obtained in 1997. STR testing was not utilized in this case until 2001. AND, the male DNA profiles isolated in 1997 revealed only consistencies among detected loci. These profiles cannot be deemed 'unique'.
 
Transcript of Dr. Dan Krane’s DNA info related to the JBR case: Tricia’s radio blogcast, Sunday, August 18, 2013
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...t-8-pm-eastern
(Special thanks to KoldKase for her help with the transcript.)

Dr Krane’s website:
http://www.bioforensics.com/

Dr Krane’s CV:
http://www.bioforensics.com/CV/KraneCV01-12.pdf

The following begins at 52:30 and extends to the end of the show segment with Dr. Krane

Cynic: I cannot let you go, Dr Krane, without your thoughts regarding the DNA evidence in the JonBenet case. I know that when we spoke, and when we emailed one another, you made some interesting comments that need to be said, so I’m going to give people a real quick lead-in and then let you take it away.
I don’t want to get into the minutia of the DNA case primarily because I don’t have the time, but I would like to focus on the DNA that’s been in the mainstream media for many years with respect to the JonBenet case.
One area in the crotch of JonBenet’s underpants that was tested revealed a profile that was ultimately uploaded to the FBI database, CODIS.
JonBenet was the major donor by virtue of contributing blood, and there was an unknown minor male profile from unknown cellular material.
That minor unknown male profile was a mixed profile with drop-out because only 10 out of 13 loci were found.
In 2008 the long johns which were worn over the underpants were sent to a private lab, Bode, as I’ve already touched on before, and they did razor scraping and so on, and it was publicly revealed that this testing resulted in DNA profiles which, while weaker than the CODIS profile, were considered to match.
So we know that these profiles were 9 loci or less.
There are, of course, a number of possible transfer mechanisms between two articles of clothing, one worn tightly over the other, you know, it could have been transfer based on that.
It could have been something that happened perhaps at the autopsy, perhaps proper safeguards weren’t in place.
Things were touched, even with gloves, it doesn’t matter, if you’re touching certain evidentiary items if you touch others without changing your gloves it’s possible that that could be a source of contamination.
Even the coroner or medical examiner, if handling instruments that weren’t properly cleaned, could have transferred from previous autopsies, and so on; there’s just a number of ways, as we’ve touched on throughout this broadcast in terms of transferring DNA evidence.
I would like to focus, however, on the fact that this was a mixed sample with drop-out-- and by drop-out I mean we don’t have information at all of the loci. For example, if I were to take a swab, a cheek swab, and send it to the lab I would have all thirteen of the CODIS loci light up and there would be a full profile.
These are partial profiles, also mixed; at least we know for a fact that the blood spot was mixed because it primarily had JonBenet’s blood.
You’ve made the statement, and it’s one that I’ve actually never heard before. You’ve told me that there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred. You then went on to tell me that, essentially what this means is that, in your opinion, from the evidence that I sent you that this DNA evidence really could not be presented in court. Could you comment?
Dr Krane: I’m sad that you hadn’t heard that before because that means that we’re not doing a good enough job of getting the word out, and often a big part of my job when I get involved with a case is educating attorneys and educating juries about things like that: that at the present time there is no generally accepted means of attaching a statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where drop-out may have occurred. In other words, we’re getting partial or incomplete information about one of the contributors.
Now, in an unmixed sample, we can deal with drop-out; but in a mixed sample, I don’t think we have the time for me to explain to you the underlying reasoning behind it, but it’s just not possible for us at the present time. It’s not for lack of trying.
At the Forensic Science Service (based in the UK), before it went out of business a few years ago, had invested millions of pounds into solving this problem. There are some people now starting to say that there might be some way to attach weight to those kinds of samples. But here’s what it all comes down to: there’s an abundance of case law within the United States that says that if you can’t attach a statistical weight to a DNA inclusion, saying that someone matches an evidence sample, if you can’t put a number on that--one in a million, one in a quintillion, something like that-- you can’t admit it as evidence. It is not something that can be presented to a jury because they simply won’t know what weight to give it if you can’t attach a reliable statistical weight. So, absent a statistical weight all that can really be said is, about a mixed sample where drop-out might have occurred, is that the test results are inconclusive. We simply are in no better position to say if an individual has contributed to a profile or not, relative to where we were before the test or after the test was performed.
So, the samples that you’re talking about here, the blood stain in the JonBenet Ramsey case from the crotch of the panties, I think at the end of the day that’s simply not something that could be presented to a jury. Now it could be used to generate investigative leads, law enforcement could use Ouija boards to generate investigative leads if they like…
Tricia: Exactly, there you go.
Dr Krane: …but it’s not something that you could talk about in court.
Tricia: Exactly.
Cynic: Tricia, this is concerning Mary Lacy, our “friend,” so I would be remiss if I let Dan go without this real quick point.
We also spoke about this:
The District Attorney went from saying this in 2006: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s… “
To, in 2008, saying: “Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.”
When you and I talked I just asked you as a hypothetical, if a District Attorney is, for example, exonerating people that were suspects for many years based exclusively on the DNA that we’ve just discussed here, is that an overreach?
Dr Krane: Well, let me draw particular attention to the word, “exclusively”: right, if that is the sole basis for the decision, I think that conveys a lack of understanding of what’s involved with those particular types of DNA test results.
Tricia: Thank you, perfect, keep going – I just wanted to hear that. That’s exactly what we wanted to hear. Please continue and we’ll wrap it up.
Dr Krane: Well, I don’t know that there’s too much more to say. It’s an overreach in the sense that, again, we’re talking here about something that couldn’t be presented to a jury and it’s an overreach because it seems to be violating, or it has the potential to violate, that axiom that I began with: that the presence of a DNA profile doesn’t necessarily say anything about the time frame or the circumstances. We can’t say that it got there because it was deposited during the commission of a crime; we can’t say it got there because the laundry had been done in a way that got somebody else’s DNA there; or it could have come there through contamination after the evidence had been collected and handled in a lab. There’s so many different ways that the DNA could have gotten there that, that by itself, those partial profiles, that’s not something that we should be attaching that kind of weight to.
Click to expand...

BBM

This interview was from the winter of 2013. They aren't considering "old evidence"

And talk about a profile :lol:

"The minor unknown male."

Should we consider that a "factory worker," or someone else?

Eta:

It's kinda ironic b/c cynic & tricia are nearly jumping out of their seat, while Dr. Krane wonders why anyone believed the misinformation that was PUSHED in MSM.
 
bettybaby00 said:
BBM

This interview was from the winter of 2013. They aren't considering "old evidence"

And talk about a profile :lol:

"The minor unknown male."

Should we consider that a "factory worker," or someone else?

Eta:

It's kinda ironic b/c cynic & tricia are nearly jumping out of their seat, while Dr. Krane wonders why anyone believed the misinformation that was PUSHED in MSM.
Click to expand...


My turn to love you more!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bettybaby00 said:
&&this interview, which although short, also discusses that in THIS PARTICULAR case, the tDNA is not as relevant as it could have been...
Click to expand...

It really is. Why? Because it matches the DNA found in her underwear. The TDNA is right where one would expect someone to touch to assault her. That it matches the DNA sample in her underwear changes the whole ball game.

There are many things about this case that can be argued and debated. DNA is a final answer. This DNA is used to target suspects and exclude. In this case it all excludes the R's.

I still believe that DNA will get us the answers in this case. The problem is that this case is from 1996. DNA science was not as good back then as it is now. So we have to hope it was all preserved and that in the end there will be a match.

JMHO

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/r...has-helped-solve-38-percent-of-burglary-cases

http://www.whio.com//news/news/local/touch-dna-solving-crime/nWPcD/


Solving Cases

"The power of Touch DNA to unlock cases first made headlines in Ohio in July of 2009. It helped to solve a gruesome double-murder investigation in Akron. Alan Grna and his mother, Julianna, were found beaten to death in their home. Stacy Violi, Forensic Scientist at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, said an alert investigator on the scene theorized that the killer may have washed blood from his hands in an upstairs bathroom and then used a roll of toilet paper to dry them. Violi said Touch DNA from a suspect was found inside the toilet paper tube, placing him at the scene of the crime. Since that case, the use of Touch DNA has spread to more cities. DeWine predicts it will help solve a local cold case that has remained a mystery for years. "

"There will be a case in the Miami Valley in the not too distant future that we will solve because of touch DNA," DeWine said.
- See more at: http://www.whio.com//news/news/local/touch-dna-solving-crime/nWPcD/#sthash.ICj75os9.dpuf


TDNA is the science that will solve cases previously unsolvable. I think the more time that is put into it the more cases we will see solved from cold case vaults.
 
bettybaby00 said:
This interview was from the winter of 2013. They aren't considering "old evidence"
Click to expand...
By "old evidence", I surmise you are referring to the DNA profiles isolated in 1997. If so, you're right. The interview transcript quoted does not include a reference to the earliest DNA analyses. So, I am confused as to the point you're trying to make. How does this information relate to Chief Kolar's references to the evidentiary DNA collected in 1997?

bettybaby00 said:
And talk about a profile :lol:

"The minor unknown male."

Should we consider that a "factory worker," or someone else?

Eta:

It's kinda ironic b/c cynic & tricia are nearly jumping out of their seat, while Dr. Krane wonders why anyone believed the misinformation that was PUSHED in MSM.
Click to expand...
I've listened to this interview many times. There is some valuable information to be gleaned, for sure.

I am confident the answers/explanations Dr. Krane provides are correct with regard to the information presented. However, I am not confident in the accuracy of Cynic's representation of the DNA evidence.
 
Anyhoo said:
Why wait until now, almost 20 years later, to do this? Are we to trust the BPD Chief any more than we trust the Boulder AG when she exonerated all the Ramsey's in the murder? If so, why? I'm not saying that FW is guilty of anything, but what kind of meaning should we give this? It means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

I felt the same way when I read this.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
It really is. Why? Because it matches the DNA found in her underwear. The TDNA is right where one would expect someone to touch to assault her. That it matches the DNA sample in her underwear changes the whole ball game.

There are many things about this case that can be argued and debated. DNA is a final answer. This DNA is used to target suspects and exclude. In this case it all excludes the R's.

I still believe that DNA will get us the answers in this case. The problem is that this case is from 1996. DNA science was not as good back then as it is now. So we have to hope it was all preserved and that in the end there will be a match.

JMHO

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/r...has-helped-solve-38-percent-of-burglary-cases

http://www.whio.com//news/news/local/touch-dna-solving-crime/nWPcD/


Solving Cases

"The power of Touch DNA to unlock cases first made headlines in Ohio in July of 2009. It helped to solve a gruesome double-murder investigation in Akron. Alan Grna and his mother, Julianna, were found beaten to death in their home. Stacy Violi, Forensic Scientist at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, said an alert investigator on the scene theorized that the killer may have washed blood from his hands in an upstairs bathroom and then used a roll of toilet paper to dry them. Violi said Touch DNA from a suspect was found inside the toilet paper tube, placing him at the scene of the crime. Since that case, the use of Touch DNA has spread to more cities. DeWine predicts it will help solve a local cold case that has remained a mystery for years. "

"There will be a case in the Miami Valley in the not too distant future that we will solve because of touch DNA," DeWine said.
- See more at: http://www.whio.com//news/news/local/touch-dna-solving-crime/nWPcD/#sthash.ICj75os9.dpuf


TDNA is the science that will solve cases previously unsolvable. I think the more time that is put into it the more cases we will see solved from cold case vaults.
Click to expand...


IMO the difference is it matched a suspect whose DNA had no business being there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Can I get some sources that verify it was NOT a mixed sample on her long johns? Because everything I've read has specifically stated it WAS a mixed sample. Am I reading things incorrectly?
 
Tawny said:
Can I get some sources that verify it was NOT a mixed sample on her long johns? Because everything I've read has specifically stated it WAS a mixed sample. Am I reading things incorrectly?
Click to expand...


You're reading it right. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Linda7NJ said:
IMO the difference is it matched a suspect whose DNA had no business being there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

AS does the TDNA and the DNA that came from the same person.

There is DNA from someone on her that does not match ANY OTHER Person already tested. THat means they did not belong there. Because there was a large amount of people tested that could have, may have belonged there.

My guess is that had the police done a better job that day in preserving the scene, finding the body, There would have been a lot more evidence that could have led to a finding. My guess is that there may be more evidence now, More TDNA on other objects that may have not been tested for it as of yet. JMO
 
Mama2JML said:
By "old evidence", I surmise you are referring to the DNA profiles isolated in 1997. If so, you're right. The interview transcript quoted does not include a reference to the earliest DNA analyses. So, I am confused as to the point you're trying to make. How does this information relate to Chief Kolar's references to the evidentiary DNA collected in 1997?

I've listened to this interview many times. There is some valuable information to be gleaned, for sure.

I am confident the answers/explanations Dr. Krane provides are correct with regard to the information presented. However, I am not confident in the accuracy of Cynic's representation of the DNA

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147105evidence.
Click to expand...

:scared:
Ok then. Wow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 139 more.
Total: 4,063 (members: 140, guests: 3,923)

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
3,923
Total visitors
4,063
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,130
Messages
17,999,432
Members
229,315
Latest member
Cheyenne1060
Back
Top