736 users online (78 members and 658 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 32 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 478
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838

    Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008...tion-still-co/


    "Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.
    “And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
    Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
    “It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”


    From Ames: Yep, that last sentence by Lee sums it up!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties — because it never has matched any suspects — might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.

    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”

    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,” she said in the statement.

    Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents.

    “They already cleared them,” he said.

    Although there’s now more of the original DNA that was found in the underwear, it’s not a new profile — and it’s still unmatched.

    “More than 10 years ago, the DNA already showed that it didn’t match the Ramseys,” Lee said.

    He said the case is a “cold case” like it’s been for more than a decade.

    “But now it’s even colder than before,” Lee said, because the Ramseys have been excluded. “Now there are no potential suspects.”


    Let's read the whole article without trying to spin it. Dr. Lee is not speculating anymore on the integrity of the DNA. ----Roy23

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties — because it never has matched any suspects — might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.

    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”

    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,” she said in the statement.

    Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents.

    “They already cleared them,” he said.

    Although there’s now more of the original DNA that was found in the underwear, it’s not a new profile — and it’s still unmatched.

    “More than 10 years ago, the DNA already showed that it didn’t match the Ramseys,” Lee said.

    He said the case is a “cold case” like it’s been for more than a decade.

    “But now it’s even colder than before,” Lee said, because the Ramseys have been excluded. “Now there are no potential suspects.”


    Let's read the whole article without trying to spin it. Dr. Lee is not speculating anymore on the integrity of the DNA. ----Roy23
    I am not the one trying to spin things here...

    Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
    “It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”


    Like Lee says..."It's all subject to interpretation"....

    I interpret what he said to mean...that he did NOT believe that the touch dna, even if found on other pieces of evidence and would be more powerful, would be enough to publicly exonerate the family. To ME, that sounds like he is saying that what they found is NOT enough evidence, and even if the same DNA that was found on the panties and the longjohns, was the same as what would be found on the rope around her neck if tested,...although it would be POWERFUL evidence, he could not say for sure if it would be enough to exonerate the Ramseys. He is also saying that the touch DNA evidence is subject to interpretation, in other words, it depends on who is doing the interpreting.

    The only reason that he is saying that it is a cold case..is because it IS. Even though there was plently of evidence to arrest the Ramsey's...the Grand Jury couldn't determine who did what...so they went free. In case you do not know how a Grand Jury works, my husband has had to testify before a Federal Grand Jury before, he works for the Government. I know all about it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838

    Touch DNA...just how reliable is it?

    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/new...er_3_2006.html


    "Touch DNA, also referred to as low copy number DNA (LCN) or low-level DNA2, results when an individual comes into contact with or touches an object, leaving small amounts of biological material on the object’s surface. Increasingly in the UK and other countries, touch DNA is being processed to assist investigators in criminal cases3. In this country, the State of Washington and several others are currently crafting legislation which will require DNA testing be performed on all weapons recovered in connection with felony crime4 within their jurisdictions. This legislative trend, together with advances in technologies designed to obtain touch DNA for investigative purposes should make the task of linking individuals to a crime weapon easier in the future. Nonetheless, and especially in the aftermath of Byrd, prosecutors should be aware of the limitations and challenges to this form of DNA evidence.'

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

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

    Limitations and Challenges




    Despite the fact LCN processing can yield potential investigative information there are many caveats associated with it including:
    • <LI class=pubtext>Amplification: The process for obtaining LCN DNA requires an analyst increase PCR-amplification from 28 to 34 cycles. Traditionally, DNA processing technology has been thought to work most efficiently when amplification is limited to 28-30 cycles. In some instances fingerprints have been analyzed at 28-40 cycles and rootless hair shafts at 35-43 cycles.10

      <LI class=pubtext>Threshold: Since results fall below the normal PCR interpretation threshold, at this time, there is no standard stochastic threshold accepted between laboratories to use in the evaluation of the LCN processing results.

      <LI class=pubtext>Contamination: A common consequence of increased PCR-amplification is that analysts see background DNA contamination resulting from DNA left by an amalgamation of the various individuals who handled the object and not exclusively from those individuals involved with the criminal act under investigated.

      <LI class=pubtext>Alleles drop-out: Allele drop-out may occur if one allele of a heterozygote locus is preferentially amplified in the increased PCR-amplification process.11

      <LI class=pubtext>Allele drop-in: Additionally, LCN typing is susceptible to allele drop-in (sometimes called stutter false alleles12) or the appearance of artificial STR profiles. Typically allele drop-in is not reproducible and thus by repeating the process multiple times without obtaining identical results, the analyst can identify the problem as allele drop-in.

      <LI class=pubtext>DNA Mixture: The problems with LCN DNA typing are exacerbated when the evidence is a mixed same-gender sample as opposed to a mixture of male and female DNA. An analyst may have difficulty in determining whether a true mixture exists in the evidence sample and separate out its contributors.13
    • Artifacts: Other caveats associated with LCN typing include potential bleed through, instrument spikes, increased potential for PCR artifacts and stutter14.
    Since DNA analysis does not shed any light on the timeframe in which a biological sample was deposited, most LCN typing, unlike other DNA typing, cannot be used for exculpatory purposes15.

    With all of these caveats, what is the potential value of LCN, now or in the future to assist criminal investigations? In reality, crime scene evidence sometimes contains insufficient DNA to render a full or partial DNA profile using standard forensic typing procedures. As a last resort screening tool for investigative purposes analysts may consider evaluating the evidence for LCN typing but only after weighing a number of issues including how critical this evidence might be in relation to all other available evidence, the various problems associated with this typing process and available resources.



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


    Oh yeah...this type of DNA testing is "REAL" reliable! (rolls eyes)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    I am not the one trying to spin things here...

    Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
    “It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”


    Like Lee says..."It's all subject to interpretation"....

    I interpret what he said to mean...that he did NOT believe that the touch dna, even if found on other pieces of evidence and would be more powerful, would be enough to publicly exonerate the family. To ME, that sounds like he is saying that what they found is NOT enough evidence, and even if the same DNA that was found on the panties and the longjohns, was the same as what would be found on the rope around her neck if tested,...although it would be POWERFUL evidence, he could not say for sure if it would be enough to exonerate the Ramseys. He is also saying that the touch DNA evidence is subject to interpretation, in other words, it depends on who is doing the interpreting.

    The only reason that he is saying that it is a cold case..is because it IS. Even though there was plently of evidence to arrest the Ramsey's...the Grand Jury couldn't determine who did what...so they went free. In case you do not know how a Grand Jury works, my husband has had to testify before a Federal Grand Jury before, he works for the Government. I know all about it.


    "Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents."

    The gig is up Ames. Lee is not a DA and admits it as such. He is a professional witness that THE PROSECUTION WOULD NEVER CALL NOW if a Ramsey was charged.

    Defense: Mr. Lee, did you say that the touch DNA found along with the DNA in the panties was powerful evidence?

    Lee: Yes

    Defense: did you also say it would be more powerful if they found more touch DNA on the rope or other items?

    Lee: Yes, I did. But I also said that they should look for links to the letter that also corroborates this DNA.

    Defense: I see. Are you an expert on handwriting analysis?

    Lee: No, I am an DNA expert.

    Defense: Yes you are and we appreciate that you gave us your expert testimony. You also admitted that there was never enough evidence to indict the Ramsey's did you not.

    Lee: That was my understanding, Sir.

    Defense: Mr. Lee have you ever heard the term about indicting a ham sandwich.

    Lee: Yes, I have.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    "Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents."

    The gig is up Ames. Lee is not a DA and admits it as such. He is a professional witness that THE PROSECUTION WOULD NEVER CALL NOW if a Ramsey was charged.

    Defense: Mr. Lee, did you say that the touch DNA found along with the DNA in the panties was powerful evidence?

    Lee: Yes

    Defense: did you also say it would be more powerful if they found more touch DNA on the rope or other items?

    Lee: Yes, I did. But I also said that they should look for links to the letter that also corroborates this DNA.

    Defense: I see. Are you an expert on handwriting analysis?

    Lee: No, I am an DNA expert.

    Defense: Yes you are and we appreciate that you gave us your expert testimony. You also admitted that there was never enough evidence to indict the Ramsey's did you not.

    Lee: That was my understanding, Sir.

    Defense: Mr. Lee have you ever heard the term about indicting a ham sandwich.

    Lee: Yes, I have.
    You can't indict a ham sandwich, if you don't know whether the mayonaise or the ham committed the crime....Know what I mean? The reason that there was no indictment, is because nobody knew who did what. They SHOULD have gone seperately into the Grand Jury....not together. End of story.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    http://www.ndaa.org/publications/new...er_3_2006.html


    "Touch DNA, also referred to as low copy number DNA (LCN) or low-level DNA2, results when an individual comes into contact with or touches an object, leaving small amounts of biological material on the object’s surface. Increasingly in the UK and other countries, touch DNA is being processed to assist investigators in criminal cases3. In this country, the State of Washington and several others are currently crafting legislation which will require DNA testing be performed on all weapons recovered in connection with felony crime4 within their jurisdictions. This legislative trend, together with advances in technologies designed to obtain touch DNA for investigative purposes should make the task of linking individuals to a crime weapon easier in the future. Nonetheless, and especially in the aftermath of Byrd, prosecutors should be aware of the limitations and challenges to this form of DNA evidence.'

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

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

    Limitations and Challenges




    Despite the fact LCN processing can yield potential investigative information there are many caveats associated with it including:
    • <LI class=pubtext>Amplification: The process for obtaining LCN DNA requires an analyst increase PCR-amplification from 28 to 34 cycles. Traditionally, DNA processing technology has been thought to work most efficiently when amplification is limited to 28-30 cycles. In some instances fingerprints have been analyzed at 28-40 cycles and rootless hair shafts at 35-43 cycles.10

      <LI class=pubtext>Threshold: Since results fall below the normal PCR interpretation threshold, at this time, there is no standard stochastic threshold accepted between laboratories to use in the evaluation of the LCN processing results.

      <LI class=pubtext>Contamination: A common consequence of increased PCR-amplification is that analysts see background DNA contamination resulting from DNA left by an amalgamation of the various individuals who handled the object and not exclusively from those individuals involved with the criminal act under investigated.

      <LI class=pubtext>Alleles drop-out: Allele drop-out may occur if one allele of a heterozygote locus is preferentially amplified in the increased PCR-amplification process.11

      <LI class=pubtext>Allele drop-in: Additionally, LCN typing is susceptible to allele drop-in (sometimes called stutter false alleles12) or the appearance of artificial STR profiles. Typically allele drop-in is not reproducible and thus by repeating the process multiple times without obtaining identical results, the analyst can identify the problem as allele drop-in.

      <LI class=pubtext>DNA Mixture: The problems with LCN DNA typing are exacerbated when the evidence is a mixed same-gender sample as opposed to a mixture of male and female DNA. An analyst may have difficulty in determining whether a true mixture exists in the evidence sample and separate out its contributors.13
    • Artifacts: Other caveats associated with LCN typing include potential bleed through, instrument spikes, increased potential for PCR artifacts and stutter14.
    Since DNA analysis does not shed any light on the timeframe in which a biological sample was deposited, most LCN typing, unlike other DNA typing, cannot be used for exculpatory purposes15.

    With all of these caveats, what is the potential value of LCN, now or in the future to assist criminal investigations? In reality, crime scene evidence sometimes contains insufficient DNA to render a full or partial DNA profile using standard forensic typing procedures. As a last resort screening tool for investigative purposes analysts may consider evaluating the evidence for LCN typing but only after weighing a number of issues including how critical this evidence might be in relation to all other available evidence, the various problems associated with this typing process and available resources.



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


    Oh yeah...this type of DNA testing is "REAL" reliable! (rolls eyes)


    Dr. Henry Lee thinks it real reliable and powerful. Read what they experts think in your article.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Let's read the whole article without trying to spin it.

    OK, let's try the same on your comments.

    The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.

    No, it doesn't. We still don't know who it belongs to or how it got there. Speculation that it belongs to the perpetrator is just that - speculation.

    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”

    Yet, she provides no evidence that it belongs to the perp.

    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,” she said in the statement.

    Some of us still have our thinking caps on.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    Let's read the whole article without trying to spin it.

    OK, let's try the same on your comments.

    The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.

    No, it doesn't. We still don't know who it belongs to or how it got there. Speculation that it belongs to the perpetrator is just that - speculation.

    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”

    Yet, she provides no evidence that it belongs to the perp.

    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,” she said in the statement.

    Some of us still have our thinking caps on.

    If you don't want to believe the experts then that is your deal. The experts think the new DNA changes the fact that the DNA on the panties was transfered accidentally. If you are a DNA expert, feel free to challenge that. We don't know who it belongs to because it was an intruder.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    We don't know who it belongs to, period. It could belong to someone who was 7 years old in 1996. It didn't have to get there in a bad way. We don't know how it got there.

    Experts don't believe that the DNA couldn't have been transferred accidentally or innocently, that is simply the way you choose to interpret it. Experts think the rope and other items should be checked for the same dna - this Lacy has completely failed to have done.

    Most experts don't think the touch DNA exonerates the Rs.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    Until now, some people speculated the DNA in the panties — because it never has matched any suspects — might have landed there innocently, perhaps through a factory worker who packaged the panties. The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.

    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”

    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,” she said in the statement.

    Still, Lee said, there never has been enough evidence to arrest the parents.

    “They already cleared them,” he said.

    Although there’s now more of the original DNA that was found in the underwear, it’s not a new profile — and it’s still unmatched.

    “More than 10 years ago, the DNA already showed that it didn’t match the Ramseys,” Lee said.

    He said the case is a “cold case” like it’s been for more than a decade.

    “But now it’s even colder than before,” Lee said, because the Ramseys have been excluded. “Now there are no potential suspects.”


    Let's read the whole article without trying to spin it. Dr. Lee is not speculating anymore on the integrity of the DNA. ----Roy23
    Roy23,
    And, Lacy said in a statement Wednesday, her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”
    Did you miss your daily dose of smarts, or are you simply biased? When Lacy states her office believes “this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.”. Thats the same as an atheist telling you he does not believe God exists, or an evolutionist telling you he believes we are descended from hamsters!

    What Lacy is saying is that her office thinks the owner of the touch dna killed JonBenet. Thats a completely diffferent matter from proving it.

    The corroborating evidence found on the girl’s long johns recently gives investigators supportive proof that the DNA on the underwear didn’t land there innocuously.
    Not really, that can only be inferred once the same touch dna appears on other crime-scene artifacts.


    “The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case,” she said in the statement.
    That can be changed at any point in the future, cleared , not suspected, are not the same as Not Guilty.


    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    We don't know who it belongs to, period. It could belong to someone who was 7 years old in 1996. It didn't have to get there in a bad way. We don't know how it got there.

    Experts don't believe that the DNA couldn't have been transferred accidentally or innocently, that is simply the way you choose to interpret it. Experts think the rope and other items should be checked for the same dna - this Lacy has completely failed to have done.

    Most experts don't think the touch DNA exonerates the Rs.

    You have an agenda. All you have to do is read the article from everything Henry Lee say to the experts.

    "Still, legal experts and investigators in the Ramsey case have asserted that the new corroborating DNA information is “huge” in building a case against a suspect and narrowing the focus"

    Do you know what this quote means? This case has gotten personal to some of you that you can't accept that it is over. At least as far as ever getting a conviction for John or Patsy Ramsey. It is never going to happen unless you find the pervert who actually did the killing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    If you don't want to believe the experts then that is your deal. The experts think the new DNA changes the fact that the DNA on the panties was transfered accidentally. If you are a DNA expert, feel free to challenge that. We don't know who it belongs to because it was an intruder.
    Don't you find it odd..that an "intruder" singled out John and his family...because the "intruder" was jealous of him. Of all the rich people in this country...the intruder singles out John..and kills his daughter...WHY? Wouldn't you think that someone out for revenge or that was jealous...would want John to KNOW that they were the one that killed his daughter. The reason that there is no DNA in the National DNA Database, is because this person has only struck once?? No other case even resembles this one...don't you find that strange. What about all of the other rich people out there with kids...why hasn't the intruder targeted them? Because there was NO intruder....that's why.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    You have an agenda. All you have to do is read the article from everything Henry Lee say to the experts.

    "Still, legal experts and investigators in the Ramsey case have asserted that the new corroborating DNA information is “huge” in building a case against a suspect and narrowing the focus"

    Do you know what this quote means? This case has gotten personal to some of you that you can't accept that it is over. At least as far as ever getting a conviction for John or Patsy Ramsey. It is never going to happen unless you find the pervert who actually did the killing.
    That would be Patsy..and she is dead.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    Don't you find it odd..that an "intruder" singled out John and his family...because the "intruder" was jealous of him. Of all the rich people in this country...the intruder singles out John..and kills his daughter...WHY? Wouldn't you think that someone out for revenge or that was jealous...would want John to KNOW that they were the one that killed his daughter. The reason that there is no DNA in the National DNA Database, is because this person has only struck once?? No other case even resembles this one...don't you find that strange. What about all of the other rich people out there with kids...why hasn't the intruder targeted them? Because there was NO intruder....that's why.

    Ames,

    You can't fake DNA. It is time to let it go. Your article shows that it is over. If you want to make the Ramsey's guilty then do it by association. Some other person killed JBR. They have his blood. They have his skin cells. The police had it for 6 years trying to make excuses for it. You are too smart not to say that somebody else did not physically hurt JBR. They have proved that much.

Page 1 of 32 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Eikelenbooms and Touch DNA
    By Dear Prudence in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 270
    Last Post: 06-23-2011, 09:42 AM
  2. Touch DNA
    By whiskeygurl in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 02:29 PM
  3. If Baez is not allowed to touch KC..why is Lyons allowed to touch KC?
    By affinity in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 02:34 PM