Any DNA experts agree w/RDI that transfer is more likely than intruder?

[Ravyn]

at this time lacy, but i expect the new one to draw same conclusions on DNA, so both

Well I'm glad you know that...

 

[BBB167893]

would you believe if outside DNA experts in the technology had reviewed these results and concluded that indeed, it pointed away from the R's?

Hard to say. At this point, I don't like to say what might happen and what might not. I realize that's probably not the answer you wanted, but it's the only one I can give you.

(Just to add: the idea that LW's bullied the media is not just my opinion.)

 

[voynich]

Hard to say. At this point, I don't like to say what might happen and what might not. I realize that's probably not the answer you wanted, but it's the only one I can give you.

(Just to add: the idea that LW's bullied the media is not just my opinion.)

If the new DA and new team concludes that Lacy was right in exonerating the R's, would you accept his judgment or would you say he like Lacy must be wrong?

 

[Ravyn]

If the new DA and new team concludes that Lacy was right in exonerating the R's, would you accept his judgment or would you say he like Lacy must be wrong?

Now a question here...Now with the new DA Stan Garrett pointing the letter to the R's was a mistake...And before giving the case back to the Boulder Police do you think that he might had study the case...Cause he said that was a mistake for some reason....

 

[voynich]

Now a question here...Now with the new DA Stan Garrett pointing the letter to the R's was a mistake...And before giving the case back to the Boulder Police do you think that he might had study the case...Cause he said that was a mistake for some reason....

What SD said

 

[BBB167893]

If the new DA and new team concludes that Lacy was right in exonerating the R's, would you accept his judgment or would you say he like Lacy must be wrong?

Again, that's a hard call to make. I guess it would depend on how good his explanation was.

 

[cynic]

Would Lacy be allowed to clear the R's if the DA's office felt she was wrong?

Yes

That being said, this is not a DNA case.
There is much to be found in this forum and others on the DNA issue and the subject has been pretty much argued to death.
Below is a bit from one of my earlier posts on how DNA transfer could have easily accounted for the findings on JBR.

"Secondary or tertiary transfer could have been the cause of both the panty and longjohn DNA findings.
"Eleven employees wore a freshly laundered item of clothing, with the exception of one participant who wore new panty hose, for a period of time, generally one day. Females wore hosiery, and males wore T-shirts. After the workday, the items were collected and stored in clean paper or plastic bags and were maintained at room temperature until analysis."
"DNA analysis was performed on the items, along with their corresponding pillboxes containing the trace evidence debris, for all study participants, their cohabitants (primarily spouses), if appropriate, and the personnel conducting scraping and DNA analysis (FBI Laboratory 1999)."
"Whereas the DNA recovered from the pillbox was a single source, the friction swab contained a major (the wearer) and an unknown minor contributor. The hosiery was removed from the original packaging and worn for an afternoon prior to testing. During this time, the only individual to come in contact with this item was the donor. These results suggest that the extraneous DNA profile may have originated at the manufacturing site or was transferred from the wearer's environment (Locard 1930). Nevertheless, the wearer of this hosiery is clearly identified as the major contributor of DNA in the STR profile."
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...01/stouder.htm
Also consider:
"Objects handled by many individuals allproduced 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/conferen...ngerprints.pdf
Again, more support:
"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."
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc...nts/murray.pdf
And finally, (although I have more if necessary)...
"Conclusions:
1.Skin to skin to object secondary transfer of trace DNA was observed.
2.The final person to come into skin contact with an object is not always the donor of the dominant profile recovered."
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modif...cm44-12738.pdf
As I have stated on another thread, Lacy and her minions are free to find "unidentified" "matching" DNA (even though they have not disclosed how many matching markers) in a 100 locations on JBR where JBR herself may have transferred it, and I will be quite unimpressed. Show me a DNA match between her panties and something that only the fictional intruder would have touched such as the garrote and I will give it some consideration.
This just serves to further disgust me with Mary Lacy. I have no idea how she is able to sleep at night, (I guess the same way that John Ramsey does). "

 

[voynich]

Yes

That being said, this is not a DNA case.
There is much to be found in this forum and others on the DNA issue and the subject has been pretty much argued to death.
Below is a bit from one of my earlier posts on how DNA transfer could have easily accounted for the findings on JBR.

"Secondary or tertiary transfer could have been the cause of both the panty and longjohn DNA findings.
"Eleven employees wore a freshly laundered item of clothing, with the exception of one participant who wore new panty hose, for a period of time, generally one day. Females wore hosiery, and males wore T-shirts. After the workday, the items were collected and stored in clean paper or plastic bags and were maintained at room temperature until analysis."
"DNA analysis was performed on the items, along with their corresponding pillboxes containing the trace evidence debris, for all study participants, their cohabitants (primarily spouses), if appropriate, and the personnel conducting scraping and DNA analysis (FBI Laboratory 1999)."
"Whereas the DNA recovered from the pillbox was a single source, the friction swab contained a major (the wearer) and an unknown minor contributor. The hosiery was removed from the original packaging and worn for an afternoon prior to testing. During this time, the only individual to come in contact with this item was the donor. These results suggest that the extraneous DNA profile may have originated at the manufacturing site or was transferred from the wearer's environment (Locard 1930). Nevertheless, the wearer of this hosiery is clearly identified as the major contributor of DNA in the STR profile."
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...01/stouder.htm
Also consider:
"Objects handled by many individuals allproduced 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/conferen...ngerprints.pdf
Again, more support:
"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."
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc...nts/murray.pdf
And finally, (although I have more if necessary)...
"Conclusions:
1.Skin to skin to object secondary transfer of trace DNA was observed.
2.The final person to come into skin contact with an object is not always the donor of the dominant profile recovered."
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modif...cm44-12738.pdf
As I have stated on another thread, Lacy and her minions are free to find "unidentified" "matching" DNA (even though they have not disclosed how many matching markers) in a 100 locations on JBR where JBR herself may have transferred it, and I will be quite unimpressed. Show me a DNA match between her panties and something that only the fictional intruder would have touched such as the garrote and I will give it some consideration.
This just serves to further disgust me with Mary Lacy. I have no idea how she is able to sleep at night, (I guess the same way that John Ramsey does). "

It's one thing to say that there's a 1% possibility that the DNA found was the result of secondary transfer, it's another thing to go from this possibility to the claim that that's what it is.

In the experiments you cite, there's no clear cut way to determine whether JB came in contact through a good shedder or poor shedder, but that an intruder directly handling her undies and pants would guarantee a transfer, whereas JB touching someone then touching herself in those areas would not guarantee a transfer.

As I stated before, Lacy contacted independent DNA experts and based on their recommendations, she concludes that "there is no innocent explanation" for DNA, and I've asked for any respected DNA experts to step forward and argued that secondary transfer better explains the findings. You are free to request more info under FOIA.

That's all I have to say. :banghead:

 

[Sophie]

Voynich, you don't need anyone to comment specifically on this case to see that DNA experts have concerns about how DNA evidence is being used generally.

I have been promising to try to find the transcript of a TV interview with Sir Richard Watsisface (the guy who invented DNA fingerprinting) in which he summarised the thoughts of the scientific community on problems they perceived in the way LE was using this evidence. He mentioned - inter alia - surprising discrepancies in the way respected labs interpreted results. If memory serves, the FBI, Cellmark, a Swiss centre and the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham (England) were all given a sample of the same DNA and each one came out with vastly differing interpretations of the evidence. This was done as part of an international DNA and LE conference. He also mentioned the blindingly obvious fact that the DNA itself proves nothing unless you can prove by other methods that it was deposited at time of the crime by the person committing the crime. As it is, if the person was known to JBR, they will use innocent transfer as their obvious defence and will, in all likelihood, get away with it, unless there is significantly more evidence against them than just the DNA.

I'm pretty sure that, at some point, someone posted similar findings from DNA experts on here....

Awesome thread - I may do another FOIA request in a couple of weeks as I'm taking the kids' half-term holiday week off work and should get around to a bit of JBR stuff.

ETA 1: Voynich, have been you following the DNA evidence in the Amanda Knox trial and what do you think of the DNA on the bra and knife?

ETA 2: I hope that LE aren't just waiting for a match on CODIS. Could wait til Doomsday...

 

[madeleine]

I'll ask this AGAIN.Does anyone believe that the dna in this case will stand up in court?

 

[Sophie]

I'll ask this AGAIN.Does anyone believe that the dna in this case will stand up in court?

I may be imagining this, Madeleine, but I am pretty sure Dr Henry Lee had doubts about that.

I have actually discussed that very question with colleagues who specialise in criminal law and without knowing too much (if anything) about the Ramsey case, they all had significant doubts about its admissibility let alone the value of it if it were allowed in evidence. You could certainly depend on the whole thing becoming a battle of experts. Obviously, this is largely based on what would happen in a court in England and Wales but the courts in common law jurisdictions tend to be remarkably similar on this sort of thing and I would expect the thing to play out over there in much the same way...


Actually, I may e mail an American acquaintance who's in criminal prosecution to see if he has any thoughts....

 

[Roy23]

I may be imagining this, Madeleine, but I am pretty sure Dr Henry Lee had doubts about that.

I have actually discussed that very question with colleagues who specialise in criminal law and without knowing too much (if anything) about the Ramsey case, they all had significant doubts about its admissibility let alone the value of it if it were allowed in evidence. You could certainly depend on the whole thing becoming a battle of experts. Obviously, this is largely based on what would happen in a court in England and Wales but the courts in common law jurisdictions tend to be remarkably similar on this sort of thing and I would expect the thing to play out over there in much the same way...


Actually, I may e mail an American acquaintance who's in criminal prosecution to see if he has any thoughts....

I actually with Sophie to an extent. But it all depends. We can argue back and forth, but the biggest issue is just the handling of the whole case in general. Not just the DNA. There is enough information on this site alone to create reasonable doubt for ANYONE who was prosecuted. But, the key here is whether the perp is known or related to the Ramsey's or the Ramsey house.

In my opinion, the nature of the crime does not point to a Ramsey even though a high percentage of these cases a parent is guilty. The points about Henry Lee is an outdated point. Since the new findings last year, at minimum, their ears perked up. I know RDI doesn't want to assume that more testing than what was released was done. Not that it is necessarily needed but I feel that it was and they are not going to release it to us.

 

[madeleine]

I actually with Sophie to an extent. But it all depends. We can argue back and forth, but the biggest issue is just the handling of the whole case in general. Not just the DNA. There is enough information on this site alone to create reasonable doubt for ANYONE who was prosecuted. But, the key here is whether the perp is known or related to the Ramsey's or the Ramsey house.

I agree with everything you said.

In my opinion, the nature of the crime does not point to a Ramsey even though a high percentage of these cases a parent is guilty. The points about Henry Lee is an outdated point. Since the new findings last year, at minimum, their ears perked up. I know RDI doesn't want to assume that more testing than what was released was done. Not that it is necessarily needed but I feel that it was and they are not going to release it to us.

I don't think Lacy bothered to test more than she needed in order to exonerate the R's but I do believe they are working on it NOW.(doesn't mean it will bring something new though)

 

[cynic]

I'll ask this AGAIN.Does anyone believe that the dna in this case will stand up in court?

There is no significant DNA in this case. What little there is would be eviscerated by a skilled attorney.
What is significant in this case is the bountiful circumstantial evidence.
A good prosecutor, Alan Jackson comes to mind, would have been able to bring the Ramseys to justice.

Some food for thought regarding DNA:

"There are published studies that document secondary transfer of DNA (in quantities that can be detected by STR tests) from items that people simply touched to other items."
" To support the theory that his DNA could have been transferred innocently to the instruments of murder, Greineder commissioned a study. Forensic scientists Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, of Technical Associates (an independent laboratory in Ventura, California) simulated the sequence of events posited by the defense theory: A man wiped his face with a towel, then a woman wiped her face with the towel, then gloves and a knife like those used in the murder were rubbed against the woman’s face. DNA tests on the gloves and knife revealed a mixture of DNA from the man and woman — exactly what was found in the Greineder case.7 Taylor was allowed to present his findings to the jury. Although the jury ultimately convicted Greineder (there was other incriminating evidence besides the DNA) the case is a good example of how the amazing sensitivity of contemporary DNA profiling methods facilitate a plausible explanation for what might at first seem to be a damning DNA test result."
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698...e540074c156?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,forensic

The Leiterman case:
"DNA believed to be from a blood drop on the victim's hand matched someone else, a man who was 4 years old at the time of the crime."
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090104/NEWS/901040380/-1/rss01

"A study of the Arizona CODIS database carried out in 2005 showed that approximately 1 in every 228 profiles in the database matched another profile in the database at nine or more loci, that approximately 1 in every 1,489 profiles matched at 10 loci, 1 in 16,374 profiles matched at 11 loci, and 1 in 32,747 matched at 12 loci.
How big a population does it take to produce so many matches that appear to contradict so dramatically the astronomical, theoretical figures given by the naive application of the product rule? The Arizona database contained at the time a mere 65,493 entries. Scary isn't it?"
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_10_06.html
also
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_09_06.html

 

[voynich]

Voynich, you don't need anyone to comment specifically on this case to see that DNA experts have concerns about how DNA evidence is being used generally.

I have been promising to try to find the transcript of a TV interview with Sir Richard Watsisface (the guy who invented DNA fingerprinting) in which he summarised the thoughts of the scientific community on problems they perceived in the way LE was using this evidence. He mentioned - inter alia - surprising discrepancies in the way respected labs interpreted results. If memory serves, the FBI, Cellmark, a Swiss centre and the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham (England) were all given a sample of the same DNA and each one came out with vastly differing interpretations of the evidence. This was done as part of an international DNA and LE conference. He also mentioned the blindingly obvious fact that the DNA itself proves nothing unless you can prove by other methods that it was deposited at time of the crime by the person committing the crime. As it is, if the person was known to JBR, they will use innocent transfer as their obvious defence and will, in all likelihood, get away with it, unless there is significantly more evidence against them than just the DNA.

I'm pretty sure that, at some point, someone posted similar findings from DNA experts on here....

Awesome thread - I may do another FOIA request in a couple of weeks as I'm taking the kids' half-term holiday week off work and should get around to a bit of JBR stuff.

ETA 1: Voynich, have been you following the DNA evidence in the Amanda Knox trial and what do you think of the DNA on the bra and knife?

ETA 2: I hope that LE aren't just waiting for a match on CODIS. Could wait til Doomsday...

Persuasive evidence of Foxy Knoxy's guilt.

 

[voynich]

There is no significant DNA in this case. What little there is would be eviscerated by a skilled attorney.
What is significant in this case is the bountiful circumstantial evidence.
A good prosecutor, Alan Jackson comes to mind, would have been able to bring the Ramseys to justice.
.maa.org/devlin/devlin_09_06.html[/URL][/SIZE][/FONT]

OJ's skillful attorneys were able to do the opposite of what you suggest -- the tremendous amount of DNA linking OJ to the murders was disregarded by the jury, so I don't deny that attorneys can do this. As w/OJ trial, what skillful demagogues can conjure up with gullible juries is no reflection of what actually happened.

I don't know where you live, but when credible DNA experts include CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory argue that this evidence is relevant, it's up for the jury (trier of facts) to decide its significance. If a judge decides not to include such exculpatory evidence, it becomes grounds for an automatic appeal.

Judge Carnes obviously accepted this evidence.

Lacy represents that she consulted "CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory" and agreed it is materially relevant, it has no innocent explanation, and it is exculpatory, and RDI have not produced any reporters interviewing dissenting DNA experts on this specific case.

If either a FOIA request or a new DA shows or falsifies Lacy's representation, as a matter of public record, that "CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory" is materially false, then I'll listen.

 

[Sophie]

See Voynich, I'm not sure about Knoxy being guilty...

The knife DNA is something you'd expect from room-mates. The bra DNA less so.

The CCTV pix of her with Raffaele just after the murder are alarming, though....



Anyway, thank you for the earlier Trekkie Youtube. In the spirit of sharing:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hasKmDr1yrA"]YouTube - Pride and Prejudice: The Lake Scene (Colin Firth Strips Off)[/ame]

 

[voynich]

See Voynich, I'm not sure about Knoxy being guilty...

The knife DNA is something you'd expect from room-mates. The bra DNA less so.

The CCTV pix of her with Raffaele just after the murder are alarming, though....



Anyway, thank you for the earlier Trekkie Youtube. In the spirit of sharing:


YouTube - Pride and Prejudice: The Lake Scene (Colin Firth Strips Off)

Honestly, I have no idea what this is about LOL. Where are the aliens? Where are the guns?

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi voynich.

Colin Firth link, expected more, actually less.

 

[Ravyn]

OJ's skillful attorneys were able to do the opposite of what you suggest -- the tremendous amount of DNA linking OJ to the murders was disregarded by the jury, so I don't deny that attorneys can do this. As w/OJ trial, what skillful demagogues can conjure up with gullible juries is no reflection of what actually happened.

I don't know where you live, but when credible DNA experts include CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory argue that this evidence is relevant, it's up for the jury (trier of facts) to decide its significance. If a judge decides not to include such exculpatory evidence, it becomes grounds for an automatic appeal.

Judge Carnes obviously accepted this evidence.

Lacy represents that she consulted "CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory" and agreed it is materially relevant, it has no innocent explanation, and it is exculpatory, and RDI have not produced any reporters interviewing dissenting DNA experts on this specific case.

If either a FOIA request or a new DA shows or falsifies Lacy's representation, as a matter of public record, that "CBI, independent DNA experts, BP, Bode Technology Group, Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory" is materially false, then I'll listen.

Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media


This Lacy statment on clearing the Ramsey now I guess we have Lacy and Carnes...Carnes didn't have all the evidence and I guess Lacy thought she did...So never been tested in court.....