DNA Revisited

[madeleine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/nat...necrophilia_charges_mount_for_former_mor.html

 

[cynic]

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]

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

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.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/

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DeeDee249]

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

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]

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

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]

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.