784 users online (97 members and 687 guests)  



Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Is the DNA quality too low to claim three matches?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • DNA quality is too low. Match claims are unreliable.

    10 66.67%
  • DNA quality is adequate. Match claims are reliable.

    5 33.33%

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299

    DNA quality poll 1 of 3

    Was the subject DNA quality so low among the samples that claims of a match are not reliable,

    OR

    was the subject DNA quality sufficient and so claims of a touch DNA match are reliable?
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 08-06-2010 at 04:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Your questoins are confusing.

    The DNA markers were pretty much just DNA markers. Either they were matched as markers in specific loci or they weren't.

    I think the question you mean to ask is were 3 enough to say the donor was the same person when those three loci matched the full profile found elsewhere on the clothes.

    No, I don't think those alone would hold up in court as proving the two profiles likely belonged to the same person with a significant degree of mathematical certainty.

    I think it's a matter of statistics in this case, as all DNA profiles are; three markers alone from a degraded profile can't exclude enough people in the general population to call it a "match" to whoever donated the full profile, as I understand the science--and I'm the first to admit this is not my strength because it's really a complicated science I can only fathom in the most rudimentary terms.

    FYI: Smit said one of the fingernail DNA profiles only had one marker...no way that's a "match" which identifies anyone.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Was the subject DNA quality so low among the samples that claims of a match are not reliable,

    OR

    was the subject DNA quality sufficient and so claims of a touch DNA match are reliable?
    Okay, now looking at your questoin again, maybe you do mean "quality" vs quantity.

    If you're asking about the issue of false markers from the samples, I can't say. I know there were questions about the "half" marker when they finally teased it out so they could run the DNA 9.5 markers through the FBI database. (That's how unreliable even 9 markers are for identification to a certainty.)

    If this is your question, sorry I can't speak to this intelligently. I do remember reading some about the problems of "interpretation" of markers, and maybe that's what you're asking. I just don't know enough about it to make that determination.

    I will say that I am skeptical about any scientific test and result that started with an end point in mind. That is troubling with the "touch" DNA, because the tech who did the testing said she discarded some DNA from the samples she got from the longjohns. She never said why nor who those belonged to, not that I saw, anyway. Maybe she had good reason, but it wasn't obvious to me.

    So sorry, I still can't vote.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Oops. I do know how to spell "question." I seem to have had a dyslexic moment last night.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    The discarded DNA was most likely replicated from the original sample as that is how it is done. You don't need huge amounts of the same strand just one good one.
    Here is a simple explanation of touch DNA and the JBR case.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...onbenet-ramsey

    I think matching 10 of the 13 they use is pretty close. They say they only got ten markers from the panties. There are more but, (no way only those ten showed up),they are concerned only with the ten they are allowed to use for "legal identification purposes". That doesn't mean they didn't get other markers as well. Markers that lead them to believe the sample from the waistband and sample for the long johns match. While they can't use those markers in a CODIS system, they submit only the ones they can. Some of the 13 markers that don't match may be known as familiar or "family" markers. That may be why the Ramsey's were ruled out. The DNA alone may give them a clue but certainly other things may fall into place once the BPD knows who to look at. I pray there is a match in some data base somewhere.
    After reading a lot of material her and other places I am now pretty certain based on the DNA findings that the family is ruled out.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    You don't need huge amounts of the same strand just one good one.
    You do need 30 or more nucleated cells for processing in a lab using standard procedures.
    Here is a simple explanation of touch DNA and the JBR case.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...onbenet-ramsey
    It’s an explanation of touch DNA; however, the reference to 7 cells, refers to a situation that would require special processing using what is commonly referred to as LCN processing (Low Copy Number.) Bode Technology Group which tested the long johns indicated that standard processing was used which would require 30 or more cells.
    I think matching 10 of the 13 they use is pretty close. They say they only got ten markers from the panties. There are more but, (no way only those ten showed up),they are concerned only with the ten they are allowed to use for "legal identification purposes". That doesn't mean they didn't get other markers as well. Markers that lead them to believe the sample from the waistband and sample for the long johns match. While they can't use those markers in a CODIS system, they submit only the ones they can. Some of the 13 markers that don't match may be known as familiar or "family" markers. That may be why the Ramsey's were ruled out. The DNA alone may give them a clue but certainly other things may fall into place once the BPD knows who to look at. I pray there is a match in some data base somewhere.
    After reading a lot of material her and other places I am now pretty certain based on the DNA findings that the family is ruled out.
    The initial analysis of one of the samples from JBR’s panties only yielded 9 ˝ markers, they eventually “worked” it to 10 markers and thus met the minimum CODIS standard. There were no more markers than that found.
    There is no question that based on what has been revealed to the public, the “best” DNA profile in this case is a partial profile that meets the minimum standard for CODIS.

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

    The source of DNA is also important as it reveals whether it could be deposited only by primary transfer or whether other possibilities such as secondary or tertiary transfer is possible along with the possibilities of innocent primary transfer and contamination. In a rape case, for example, where semen has been deposited, and a sample obtained from a vaginal swab, there can be no doubt that it was left by primary transfer.
    That is not the situation in the Ramsey case. The DNA here is not from semen or blood, but rather sources that leave open the possibility of adventitious transfer and contamination.

    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

    PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
    Annual Scientific Meeting, Denver, CO
    February 16-21, 2009
    “Touch and Transfer” DNA Samples: Practical and Ethical Issues
    Valerie K. Fahrnow, BSN*, Clinical Reference Laboratory, 8433 Quivira
    Road, Lenexa, KS 66215

    After attending this presentation, the attendees will understand the practical and ethical issues of “touch and transfer” DNA in the judicial system.

    Previously undetectable evidence is being presented to facilitate the administration of equal justice. However, forensic DNA is not a panacea. Limitations of touch DNA need to be recognized and respected. Selected practical and ethical issues of touch DNA will be addressed.
    Touch and transfer DNA samples are minuscule amounts of DNA (< 50 pg) from any cellular or biological material which comes into contact with another object or body. Transference may occur from person to person, person to object, object to person, and object to object.

    The novelty and potential use of this rapidly emerging technology must be tempered through addressing practical considerations. These recognized scientific and analytical limitations include, but are not limited to: discretion in the selection of a typing kit, recognition of potential stochastic effects, the infallibility of low-level mixtures,
    adherence to established detection thresholds and compliance with analytical standards. Data analysis and impartial statistical significance of the results cannot be neglected. Presentation by the proponent, of these material factors must be competently and completely presented, in good faith, as an integral part of the judicial process.
    In addition, ethical standards regarding the weight of the evidence must also be elucidated. Critical considerations for determining the reason for sample collection, issues of primary, secondary, and tertiary transfer, and sample contamination must all be considered. These issues foster speculation regarding evidential viability. Presence of a DNA profile, does not answer the question of when or how it get there nor its ensuing implications. The perseverance of introducing phantom suspects due to speculative testimony must be substantively examined. The potential of wrongfully convicting an innocent bystander or exoneration of a guilty person are of primary concern. The totality of the evidence is integral to the case. The mere existence of a DNA profile is not indicative of innocence or guilt.
    The recognition and impact of touch and transfer DNA evidence in the judicial system is commonly neglected and misunderstood by the courts. In scrutinizing evidentiary standards for minuscule amounts of DNA in criminal cases, the court in State v. Freeman, 2008 WL 142299, (Mo.App.S.D. Jan. 16, 2008 - No.28150) determined, “DNA is robust and easily transferred ... Its mere presence is not adequate for inferences of guilt.” Accordingly, prosecutors must be aware of limitations and challenges regarding touch DNA to minimize its misuse as evidence. The analytical process, misconceptions and powerfully persuasive evidential impact of touch DNA in criminal prosecutions must be understood and properly utilized. Limitations of low level DNA need to be recognized and respected. The importance of ethical and good faith application of this invisible evidence is paramount.
    http://www.aafs.org/pdf/2009ProceedingsDenver.pdf

    Some more reading if you’re interested:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=3
    Posts 64 and 65
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=108432&page=7
    Post 158
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91605&page=4

    Post 99
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=15
    Posts 367 - 370
    See also:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108432&page=8
    Post 177
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    In the article I was quoting the lab person used PCR which duplicates the DNA and duplicates again. When she says she discarded some DNA I meant she discarded duplicates that she did not need as she had replicated enough to run the test.

    The article also explains about how only the 13 are used because of other privacy issues, health markers like having Lou Gerigs or MD, MS, sickle cell anemia etc. That does not mean they don't have the results in those tests only that they can't release them or use them in CODIS. That is the point I'm making just because they can't use it in a CODIS system doesn't mean they didn't run the tests and find out something about the DNA they can't release to the public.
    I understand the touch DNA as opposed to direct bodily fluid DNA. If one of the parents or Burke transfered this DNA to the long johns and panties then that to me is a near impossibility.

    Let me explain--- I shake your hand and I'm a good shedder I leave lots of my DNA on your hand. We part and you leave, on the way out you touch the doorknob, you put your hand on your own doorknob at home. You commit a murder using something besides your hands. I point to the skull fracture and the garrote.
    To me there is too much other touching going on for transfer of my DNA to your crime scene victim. 2 doorknobs, an unknown bashing object, a garrote, a paintbrush, etc. Even if I am a good shedder you touched too many items by the time it came to touch the panties and the long johns. BTW both hands would have been used to pull up the long johns as DNA was retrieved from both the right and left sides of the long johns. So at some point you had to touch your other hand with my DNA on it to transfer it to your other hand.
    The touch DNA is very promising to helping solve this case as transfer from the parents or Burke would be unlikely considering all the other touching that had to have been done before she actually died. No one washes hands or changes clothes, no one touches the sheets or blankets to go to bed. No one touches anything before they transfer that DNA to her panties and long johns. Patsy spoke about putting on her make up before coming downstairs to find the RN. She must have removed the old before putting on new and that was most likely done before she went to bed. This would require her to wash her hands. Her fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl so we know she touched that if it was transfer wouldn't that fingerprint contain the same DNA as "unknown male" as she transferred it too.
    Test the fingerprints and for goodness sake test the rope too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    In the article I was quoting the lab person used PCR which duplicates the DNA and duplicates again. When she says she discarded some DNA I meant she discarded duplicates that she did not need as she had replicated enough to run the test.
    You don’t discard DNA, in terms of replication, either you use 28 cycles for standard processing, or generally 34 cycles with LCN processing that involves samples with few cells.
    The article also explains about how only the 13 are used because of other privacy issues, health markers like having Lou Gerigs or MD, MS, sickle cell anemia etc. That does not mean they don't have the results in those tests only that they can't release them or use them in CODIS. That is the point I'm making just because they can't use it in a CODIS system doesn't mean they didn't run the tests and find out something about the DNA they can't release to the public.
    Forensic testing involves targeting only CODIS markers, they didn’t get a full profile because of either degradation or sample size issues or both.
    I understand the touch DNA as opposed to direct bodily fluid DNA. If one of the parents or Burke transfered this DNA to the long johns and panties then that to me is a near impossibility.
    I understand, you are not alone in your opinion, neither am I in mine.
    Realize that there are also other avenues by which the DNA could have been deposited in this case including innocent primary transfer or contamination. To rule out innocent transfer with this type of DNA is not possible.
    Also, keep in mind that there are other cases where there has been no explanation for DNA, including multiple locations, I outlined those in my links at the bottom of my previous post.

    No one washes hands or changes clothes, no one touches the sheets or blankets to go to bed. No one touches anything before they transfer that DNA to her panties and long johns. Patsy spoke about putting on her make up before coming downstairs to find the RN. She must have removed the old before putting on new and that was most likely done before she went to bed. This would require her to wash her hands. Her fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl so we know she touched that if it was transfer wouldn't that fingerprint contain the same DNA as "unknown male" as she transferred it too.
    I have gone through these scenarios before and the problem is that we have to rely on “facts” from people that may well be responsible for the crime, and as such, may well contain many untruths. As an example, I don’t believe PR did anything with her makeup, or go to sleep that night, for that matter.
    Test the fingerprints and for goodness sake test the rope too.
    I agree.
    Last edited by cynic; 10-11-2010 at 06:57 PM.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    If the unknown male fed her the pineapple, why isn't HIS matching DNA found there? ohh- the latex gloves were ON then, right. Man, how many times did those gloves go on and off. Gloved hands to feed the pineapple and open the WC door, UNgloved to take down her panties and longjohns (a BIG no-no if you plan to molest that child). I guess gloves were worn for everything BUT that, as that male DNA doesn't appear anywhere else. And before mentioning the obvious (that not every single surface was tested) there were plenty of items tested pertinent to the crime that the male DNA would have been there if the same person handled those things (i.e. was actually there at the time the crime was committed) because skin cells ONLY on her clothes don't tie the donor to her death.
    Yes- let's test that cord- the handle of the paint tote and all the items in it, every door handle in the home, the suitcase, even the Dr. Seuss book.
    Sadly- that can never happen. The house has been sold an repainted a few times, the WC walled up, the metaphysical imprint of a tiny girl's terror forever sealed away. Does LE even still HAVE the paint tote and suitcase?
    While the Boulder DA seems to want to at least pretend to reopen this case, how about taking a look at that warehouse of untested evidence that they already have. Instead of trying to get cooperation from witnesses that do not have to, and probably will never, be deposed, the answer could be right under their noses, locked away in that evidence locker. And speaking of the evidence locker, I'd want to know who had had access to that over the years. Does the BPD have a system in place to be sure no unauthorized people get in there and have a "look"? Are there cameras in place to see of anything is removed or tampered with?
    Enquiring minds want to know...
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    If the unknown male fed her the pineapple, why isn't HIS matching DNA found there? ohh- the latex gloves were ON then, right. Man, how many times did those gloves go on and off. Gloved hands to feed the pineapple and open the WC door, UNgloved to take down her panties and longjohns (a BIG no-no if you plan to molest that child). I guess gloves were worn for everything BUT that, as that male DNA doesn't appear anywhere else. And before mentioning the obvious (that not every single surface was tested) there were plenty of items tested pertinent to the crime that the male DNA would have been there if the same person handled those things (i.e. was actually there at the time the crime was committed) because skin cells ONLY on her clothes don't tie the donor to her death.
    Yes- let's test that cord- the handle of the paint tote and all the items in it, every door handle in the home, the suitcase, even the Dr. Seuss book.
    Sadly- that can never happen. The house has been sold an repainted a few times, the WC walled up, the metaphysical imprint of a tiny girl's terror forever sealed away. Does LE even still HAVE the paint tote and suitcase?
    While the Boulder DA seems to want to at least pretend to reopen this case, how about taking a look at that warehouse of untested evidence that they already have. Instead of trying to get cooperation from witnesses that do not have to, and probably will never, be deposed, the answer could be right under their noses, locked away in that evidence locker. And speaking of the evidence locker, I'd want to know who had had access to that over the years. Does the BPD have a system in place to be sure no unauthorized people get in there and have a "look"? Are there cameras in place to see of anything is removed or tampered with?
    Enquiring minds want to know...
    We know that deals were being made to see evidence What was viewed and where, and what precautions were being taken?
    Patrick Burke presented Hofstrom with a list of conditions to be met before the CBI could test the note for the police.
    He wanted access to the ransom note for the Ramseys’ own handwriting experts. In addition he wanted a first-generation copy of the note and 4 x 5 inch negatives of each page. Later the Ramseys’ attorneys set further conditions: they wanted to see the ligature and the “garrote” used to murder JonBenet.
    Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 294-295
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Interesting arguments all around. Thanks for laying it out for us.

    A poster at FFJ, fr brown, put some links up to articles on DNA issues that may already be here. Just in case, with fr brown's permission, I'll add them as the quotes fr brown used are interesting regarding DNA processing techniques, contamination, interpretation, reliability, etc.

    [Good stuff, fr brown. Thanks!]

    fr brown
    Member Join Date: Sep 2009
    Posts: 234

    Problems with DNA

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

    I've seen several articles about the problem of DNA contamination at crime scenes and mortuaries by investigators and lab techs. Since it seems likely that Patsey Ramsey wrote the ransom note, how did the minute amount of foreign DNA (the amount in a sneeze) get into the blood spot in JonBenet's underwear? Maybe just by someone talking over it?

    "Results show that contamination by talking in both kneeling and sitting positions occurred almost immediately (<30 seconds, but not from just one sentence) up to 69 cm from the subject. When standing, contamination could be observed up to a maximum 115 cm from the subject, and was only present in one of three repeats when talking for only 30 seconds. This article illustrates how rapidly a static person can potentially contaminate an area in front of him or herself within a laboratory or scene environment, just by talking."

    From "How long does it take a static speaking individual to contaminate the immediate environment?"

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/16461813157pqk46/
    This one really scares me:

    fr brown
    Member Join Date: Sep 2009
    Posts: 234

    Fallible DNA evidence can mean prison or freedom

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

    From a subscription-only New Scientist article (a link to a free article covering the same territory is in my next post):

    "But DNA is not as objective as you might think. In the first of a two-part investigation, New Scientist reveals that much of the DNA analysis now conducted in crime labs can suffer from worrying subjectivity and bias. We asked forensic analysts to interpret a sample of real DNA evidence and found that they reached opposing conclusions about whether the suspect matched it or not. Our subsequent survey of labs around the world also shows that there are significant inconsistencies in the guidelines on how to interpret a sample. The findings suggest that the difference between prison and freedom could often rest on the opinions of a single individual....Interpreting alleles in a mixed or partial sample is where the subjective opinion of an analyst could play a part...."

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...r-freedom.html
    One more that has thought provoking implications:

    fr brown
    Member Join Date: Sep 2009
    Posts: 234

    Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review

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

    "In our experience, examination of the underlying laboratory data frequently reveals limitations or problems that would not be apparent from the laboratory report, such as inconsistencies between purportedly "matching" profiles, evidence of additional unreported contributors to evidentiary samples, errors in statistical computations and unreported problems with experimental controls that raise doubts about the validity of the results. Yet forensic DNA analysts tell us that they receive discovery requests from defense lawyers in only 10-15% of cases in which their tests incriminate a suspect.

    Although current DNA tests rely heavily on computer-automated equipment, the interpretation of the results often requires subjective judgment. When faced with an ambiguous situation, where the call could go either way, crime lab analysts frequently slant their interpretations in ways that support prosecution theories."

    http://www.bioforensics.com/articles...champion1.html
    Last edited by KoldKase; 10-12-2010 at 01:56 AM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Ok let us say the DNA is a contaminant. Whose? I'm sure all officers, coroners, ambulance drivers etc have a DNA profile on file. Others who were at the scene like the White's were also tested. Why can the DNA not be matched to them? The people at the scene are known, the people who handled JBR's body are known, the responding officers are known but the test results are "male unknown donor". Don't point to a factory worker as the panty DNA and the long john DNA are a match. The panties are new and the long johns are not. Who could have handled the long johns innocently. You stated it was impossible to rule out innocent transfer, I beg to differ.
    Housekeeper-female, ruled out as well as any male children who might have gone to work with her via shedding their DNA on her.
    Ramsey family- ruled out
    Whites- ruled out
    Other 200 people tested- ruled out.
    I am assuming investigators, coroners etc are in that 200 tested.

    Since the long johns were not new had been used and laundered the only way for innocent DNA to show up on them is by handling them. Since our kids don't get dressed by random strangers on the street innocent deposition of DNA is very unlikely.

    If a perp "gets off" doing what was done to JBR then I can see them removing their gloves as they want to feel the victim. How many men hate condoms because they interfere with the "feeling" let alone gloves.

    I am surmising that additional DNA testing was done even though it can't be used to identify someone in court or submitted to CODIS mainly as an investigative tool to rule people out. If it was known that the P. side of Family ( Patsy ) has a genetic marker such as MS they could look for that gene. Knowing that Patsy also carries that gene. The gene is not found and we would not hear about it as the testing results are not submittable by a prosecutor in court. Let us say Patsy was a close match to "incomplete strands" and is being prosecuted. Her defense team could waive the right to protect her medical info in her genes and request additional testing. The tests are done and the marker for MS is not present where it should be located on the DNA strand. This would "prove" she is not the DNA donor. That could be submitted in court as Patsy waived her medical privacy rights. We don't know what the new investigation is doing or what information they won't release. I wouldn't be shocked to learn they did some "additional" testing at the request of the family.

    About the make up it is obvious when someone is freshly made up or wore the stuff all night. If she never went to bed she did shower and remove make up and then put it back on.
    Her story would have been easy to blow a hole through if no wet towels, wet shower, or smeared mascara etc was present. Many point to her vanity and no vain woman is going to be caught dead wearing day old make up. In fact proper skincare experts all agree remove it at night, don't sleep with it on and remove it in morning. It causes clogged pores and zits. It also better fits into a clean up scenario to have her shower and remove any evidence from her body.
    It has been pointed out that "unknown male DNA" doesn't rule the family out. It would only point to a 3rd party being involved.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Interesting, Cathy.

    I don't know about the makeup arguments. I'm from the generation of rabid makeup wearers and I know makeup can be reapplied over old makeup--refreshed--and no one is going to be able to tell. Also, if Patsy and John were in this together, she could have taken a bath in his shower and used his towel and since they said he'd showered, no one would know. Also, Patsy wore wigs even as a young woman, plus through her cancer treatments, though in thinking about it, I have no idea if she had one on that morning. So I don't know that Patsy's makeup and hair can be proven one way or another at this point.

    You asked how could innocent transfer have occurred, and there are many scenarios I've seen speculated, but here's one that Ollie Gray actually made me think about when on TV he brought it up himself, oddly enough: the paintbrush.

    If the paintbrush was inserted into the child, and I think it's logical to conclude that it was used for that purpose, it could have had DNA on it belonging to someone else. I think Ollie was pointing out it could have had the "intruder's" DNA on it and that's how it got in the blood spot in the panties, inserted and the flow of blood from the injuries picked it up in the vagina and deposited it on the panty.

    But if that's true, then there was "other" DNA on the paintbrush, which the person who inflicted the sexual assault clearly handled. That means the DNA would have gotten on the hands or gloves, either one, and then was transferred on the longjohns when they were pulled back on the child, at the waistband.

    Here's why I find that very possible: if you've ever used a paintbrush, you know it's like a writing pen and you unconsciously put it into your mouth, are handling it with hands that have been rubbed across your face, scratched your body, etc. the usual things we do unconsciously all the time.

    Now I know it was Patsy's paintbrush. So how did someone else's DNA get on it? She took painting classes and that was the purpose of the tote tray, if memory serves. So what if she was in a paint class and someone near her sneezed? No one who has ever seen that documentary they played on PBS where someone sneezes against a back-light will have trouble imagining droplets of mucous and saliva spraying the surrounding area. A cough can do the same. Or perhaps she dropped the brush and someone picked it up and handed it to her. Or maybe she loaned it to a paint partner. Or maybe her teacher took it out of her hand to show her a technique--had that happen before.

    How about she dropped her paint tote at a random spot, like walking to her car, and someone stopped and helped her pick up its contents--that's very common, believe it or not, and I'm speaking from experience, as people are helpful in that way.

    What if the paint tote was knocked over by someone working in the home, a catering employee or delivery person, who then picked up its contents?

    Since the paintbrush was a large part of the crime scene and weapon used to strangle JonBenet, we know it was in the hands of whomever committed this crime. Breaking that paintbrush is also something that required a lot of pressure on it, in someone's hands, unless they stepped on it, which brings up other possibilities. If those hands also pulled the underwear and longjohns down and then back up, then this could very well be where the transference occurred, IMO.

    Is this stretching? Ollie Gray must not have thought so. I don't think so, either. We don't live in a vacuum. If anyone interacted with more people than Patsy Ramsey while running her busy life, they must be exhausted.

    Did LE get samples and test the people in her paint classes? I doubt it. But it didn't have to be one of those people, either. Did they test all the children who'd ever been in the Ramsey home? Maybe one of them picked up the brush and pretended to be painting--stuck it in the mouth, scratched an itch with it, wielded it like a weapon. The Ramseys said the kids from the neighborhood were in and out all the time and not only played in the basement, but she complained they didn't flush the toilet, didn't she? Kids are very spontaneous and curious about things like that.

    So that's just one "scenario" of how the DNA could have gotten there, not being deposited by the donor while committing the crime. Is it "the" explanation? No way to know, is there?

    But it does bring me back to the question of that Bloomies package the Ramseys finally turned over in 2002 and if it and its contents were tested. There are so many unanswered questions we have about those Bloomies. Where were they when they got missed by LE collecting JB's underwear out of her drawer? Patsy said she put them in the drawer, but LE did not find them. Then the package was turned over to Lacy in 2002--where was it all those years? Jams said in a box packed at the Boulder home and never unpacked; an employee found it, allegedly, and if that's true, he knew what he had. Meaning they held onto it--destroying evidence is a crime--but didn't turn it over until they got Ramsey supporter Lacy in charge of the case. (Lin Wood himself has stated several times, even once in the past couple of weeks, that the Ramseys were instrumental in getting the case into Lacy's hands. Think about the implications of that for our justice system.)

    So what were the results of testing that package? Where's that press conference? Were there fingerprints on it? Whose? Was there "touch" DNA on it? Whose? Did the other panties in it have "foreign" DNA on them? If DNA was found that matched the "foreign" DNA, then how'd that happen, when Patsy said she put the Bloomies in JB's drawer? Where was that package located in the home when it was packed by someone? (The Ramseys never returned, so it wasn't them.)

    You see, this is why I cant' just say, oh, unknown skin cell DNA=intruder. Okay then! There are always too many unanswered questions, and usually the confusion comes straight from the Ramseys not telling LE the truth so many times, it's amazing LE never pinned them down. But no--LE was too busy tiptoeing around the Ramseys and their lawyers, who threatened to leave if an uncomfortable question was asked or who interrupted the answers and made arguments cuing their clients what to say in this dangerous territory.

    How can anyone trust the "touch" DNA results if Lacy didn't ask the Ramseys questions about the Bloomies package, when Patsy obviously lied to LE about it already? If Lacy didn't test that package and the cord and duct tape and paintbrush for "touch" DNA, if she didn't subpoena the Ramsey's old phone records at long last, then she wasn't investigating this case in good faith any more than the Ramseys were looking for an intruder all those years, with their WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES, as John Ramsey so often announced, then said under oath those same detectives were actually only working on the Ramseys' defense and that's why they never found that intruder. When the Ramseys were constantly changing their stories, how can anyone trust them? Much less a district attorney?

    Well, just my opinion.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    I don't know, CathyR; even Bill Wise said it was highly unlikely that every single person who could have handled the clothing during the investigation's first days was tested. From what I understand, it was like herding cats.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Oh Lord no wonder this case is so difficult and the new DA has started at square one. I hope someday somehow we will have an answer. It may not be what we expected but I know a few people who do know who did it.
    God cause he knows everything
    JBR cause she was there
    Patsy because if innocent she now knows.


    Let us join in group prayer that investigators find enough clues, get a confession or someone who doesn't know they hold that key piece of evidence comes forward with it.
    Amen.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. POLL--What do you think happened to Zach Marrs -POLL
    By CARIIS in forum The Poll Forum! Public Welcome To Participate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:51 AM
  2. Catherine Theisen testimony (Chief Quality Assurance)
    By Ssejors in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 01:30 PM