933 users online (106 members and 827 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Dna

  1. #1
    ajt400Guest

    Dna

    I can't remember which thread the info was on, so I will just put a new one up......this thread said the DNA found onJBR's panties didn't match the DNA under her nails. I just want to thank whoever posted it, I have often wondered that. And where did you get the info? Also, if this DNA is from a factory, would it not wash away in a washer and dryer? (The panties that were taken were from a new panty pack.....)

    Any info on this?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    STOP right there.
    You used the word 'match'. Do not do that.
    It is a meaningless word in forensics, whether you are talking about dna, fingerprints, footprints, descriptions of perpetrators, or whatever. Do NOT use the word 'match'.

    Now as to dna in 'a random package from the factory's assembly line'..yes. its possible. Though with the factory being in Vietnam I don't think the dna is that of the intruder.

    Now as to dna in THE package, the BPD/CBI had no interest in taking that package, but Ramsey investigators eventually did obtain it so as to preserve any evidence. My understanding is that there was no such evidence.

    Now as to the dna panties and fingernail dna.
    The original sample from the panties was a partial profile and it did not exclude the source of the dna from the fingernails as being the same as the source of the original panties.

    My understanding is that the second dna sample from the panties provided a FULL 13 points and does not exclude the fingernail dna either.

    But please,,, don't use the word 'match'.
    If you take your thumb and put it on an inkpad then make TWO separate impressions of your thumb on a piece of paper... the two prints are NOT a match, but obviously your thumb made each of them. Yet they are NOT a match.

    avoid the word 'match' when discussing forensics unless you are talking about a device often used for lighting cigarettes.

  3. #3
    ajt400Guest
    Thanks for the info....but don't shoot the messenger, Toth.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    Toth, you may be right that the word "match" is meaningless in forensics, but forensic scientists use it all the time in TV crime documentaries that are geared toward the general public, so although "match" might not be as technically accurate as "consistent with," it's close enough.

    I originally read that the extra markers in the two DNA samples (fingernails and underpants) do not match in an ABC News online article, but the article is no longer available.

    Here's an excerpt from Troy Cowan's website which also describes the non-match.

    When the DNA under the fingernails and in the panties was tested there were more markers than there should have been. What caused these extra markers? Was it an indicator of an intruder's DNA mixed in with JonBenet's, or was it caused by amplifying degraded DNA (stutter bands). In the two samples, the location of the extra DNA markers should match exactly if the DNA under her fingernails and in her panties came from the same person, but they don't match. Since they do not match, you will have to conclude that there were two intruders or the mismatch was caused by the stutter effect. If the stutter (Amplifying degraded DNA) effect is responsible for the extra markers, then there was no intruder and there is no foreign DNA.

  5. #5
    ajt400Guest
    What about my question , if the DNA is a result of the stutter effect, would it have still been there after being washed and dryed? (The example of the stutter efeect was on a pair of panties that was new, not a pair that had been washed and dryed) I am not sure if DNA could withstand that, I don't know.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    I don't know where Toth is getting his info from because the lab reports have not been released to the best of my knowledge. There has of course been a lot of SPECULATION on a certain forum about the DNA, but we have only that - speculation.

    It is poignant that Toth does not state his sources (please note that he never does) and I would suggest that you treat them with the same degree of skepticism as all other unsourced statements.

    DNA FACTOIDS

    • There was foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear which was mixed with her own DNA.
    • There was also foreign DNA found under her fingernails.
    • Neither of these foreign DNA samples had the full 13 markers required for CODIS (a standard for collecting, storing and evaluating DNA samples)
    • These foreign DNA samples were described by experts as being 'cracked/degraded' and of dubious significance to the case. When DNA is exposed to extreme heat or chemicals, the strands break up - hence 'cracked'. Some strands may disappear altogether.
    • It is possible that these foreign DNA fragments belong to more than one person. If they do, then none of the Ramseys are excluded as being the donors.
    • If they ARE from just one person, then that person is male and not a Ramsey.
    • Race cannot be determined from DNA and therefore Toth's comment about the Vietnamese factory worker is meaningless (he knows this I don't know why he keeps throwing it in). The source of this statement is a scientist working on the Human Genome project.
    • Lin Wood has stated that the foreign DNA in her underwear did not come from blood.


    HOWEVER

    There is another DNA source - known now as DNA-x which Beckner mentioned cagily in his deposition. It is a different source from the degraded DNA above. We do not know the source of DNA-x but we do know that the Ramsey DNA was compared to it. Beckner refused to comment on whether they had a match for this DNA or not. Nor do we know whether those markers from the above foreign DNA match DNA-x or not.

    Lin Wood desperately tried to pump Beckner for information about DNA-x but Beckner refused to divulge saying that it could compromise the investigation. Therefore it is unlikely that Lin Wood or ******* know the source of DNA-x. It was also stated that DNA-x was investigated late in 1998 - after Lou Smit's resignation. Smit has been rehired by Keenan but she seems to be keeping a very tight ship and although it is certain that Smit will now be privy to the source of DNA-x - he won't be talking.

    Therefore - any statements which you read about DNA-x on the Internet are most certainly speculation and to be taken with the appropriate measure of salt.
    Last edited by Jayelles; 11-12-2003 at 06:30 PM.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  7. #7
    ajt400Guest
    I have just not seen a cse where DNA is found in a murdered child's panties that has been discredited so much.

  8. #8
    ajt400Guest
    I have just not seen a cse where DNA is found in a murdered child's panties that has been discredited so much. It's as if people are going crazy an dnot paying attn to things that could be relevant.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Originally posted by Toth
    Its just that I have not found ANY case in either real life or in the world of crime fiction where dna found on a female's body was so vigorously explained away.
    You got that one right, Toth. And WHY is that?
    In ALL the other cases you speak of there is one major difference. The DNA has a S-O-U-R-C-E
    It's either from semen, hair, blood, saliva, skin....some identifiable SOURCE. In this case there is NO source. In fact, if the DNA isn't contamination from the coroner's lab, the experts have said it might be a product of the DNA process itself. That should tell you how meaningless the DNA is to this case without a SOURCE.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Originally posted by ajt400
    I have just not seen a cse where DNA is found in a murdered child's panties that has been discredited so much. It's as if people are going crazy an dnot paying attn to things that could be relevant.....
    Let's put it into perspective. The foreign DNA contamination is a single broken strand, nowhere near being complete.
    Now do you know ANY way a person could possibly leave that microscopic amount of genetic material behind that it would contain only a fractured strand of DNA? The tiny amount of saliva on a cigarette butt is enough to easily get a complete DNA profile.
    If an intruder left the DNA behind--that intruder is a Genetic Engineer.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    Originally posted by ajt400
    Thanks for the info....but don't shoot the messenger, Toth.
    I wouldn't do that.
    Its just that I have not found ANY case in either real life or in the world of crime fiction where dna found on a female's body was so vigorously explained away.

  12. #12
    ajt400Guest
    The DNA had no source? It was that minute?.....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Originally posted by Toth
    I wouldn't do that.
    Its just that I have not found ANY case in either real life or in the world of crime fiction where dna found on a female's body was so vigorously explained away.
    I do not know how "vigorously" you would call this explanation, but I have brought the following case to your attention before:

    http://www.wisbar.org/WisCtApp2/3qr97/96-3027.htm

    In support of his motion, Avery provided the trial court with the results of DNA testing establishing that the DNA in the fingernail scrapings from P.B. were "consistent with a mixture of DNA from P.B.[] and at least one other individual." The results also indicated that "Avery [] cannot be excluded as a possible contributor to this mixed sample, however, there are additional alleles present which could not have been contributed by either of these individuals." Thus, the DNA evidence showed a mixture of DNA under P.B.'s fingernails. Certain aspects of the DNA matched both P.B. and Avery. Other aspects matched neither P.B. nor Avery. Thus, Avery contends that the DNA results suggested the presence of a third party.

    The trial court denied Avery's motion because the newly-discovered evidence did not exclude Avery and because the evidence at the trial and the postconviction hearing revealed various other innocent sources of the additional DNA.

    Avery first points to his DNA expert testimony that a person's "normal day-to-day activity" can cause the removal of DNA material from underneath the fingernails. Specifically, the expert testified that washing one's hands would be the most likely cause of removal. Based on this testimony, Avery argues that P.B.'s activities of jogging and splashing in the water just prior to the attack likely removed any preexisting DNA sources from beneath her fingernails. Between the time of the assault and the completion of the medical examination at the hospital, Avery argues there were no likely incidents during which DNA could have been transferred.

    However, the DNA expert also testified that genetic material can be deposited underneath one's fingernails during casual contact. Following P.B.'s assault, she felt unable to walk. She crawled to a nearby beach where she was assisted by a man and a woman. The woman gave P.B. a towel and helped P.B. cover herself with it. The man and woman then supported P.B. as they walked in the direction of the beach where P.B. had left her husband. When P.B. neared the beach, her husband approached, picked her up and carried her back towards the beach. P.B. was then transported, by ambulance, to the hospital. There she was tended to by emergency personnel and her personal physician. While P.B. was in the emergency room, a nurse took her fingernail scrapings.(2)

    Even assuming that P.B. washed away any preexisting DNA prior to the attack, the State argues that a source of DNA, such as a "flake" of skin, could have been deposited under P.B.'s fingernails during any one of her "casual contacts" with the towel, the man and woman who assisted her, her husband and hospital personnel. Thus, the State reasons that the unidentified DNA found after the attack could belong to any number of innocent sources--not just the perpetrator. As such, the State contends that "the DNA testing which excluded the defendant and the victim as the source of the DNA, really does not have much probative force in excluding the defendant as the assailant."

    We agree with the State.

  14. #14
    ajt400Guest
    So this came after he was convicted? Not before? And no one tried to explain it away as soon as it came up? They accepted it as viable evidence....this still support what Toth said, that no other case has so vigorously tried to explain away DNA found on a child's body, right?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    The standard for post conviction relief is simple: Once you are in, you ain't a gonna get out!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast